Tony Eugene Saffold v. T. Reynolds;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TONY EUGENE SAFFOLD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
T. REYNOLDS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15793
D.C. No. 1:09-cv-02262-DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted October 15, 2013***
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Tony Eugene Saffold appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
FILED
OCT 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-15793 2
defendants violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and a
dismissal for failure to exhaust, Sapp v. Kimbrell, 623 F.3d 813, 821 (9th Cir.
2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Saffold’s failure-to-protect claim
because Saffold failed to exhaust administrative remedies in a proper manner. See
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95 (holding that “proper exhaustion” is
mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); Sapp, 623
F.3d at 825 (“[A]n inmate must first present a complaint at the first level of the
administrative process.”). The district court did not clearly err in finding that
Saffold failed to give prison officials notice of his failure-to-protect claim. See
Sapp, 623 F.3d at 821 (reviewing underlying factual findings for clear err); Griffin
v. Arpaio, 557 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2009) (grievance must give notice of
claim).
The district court properly dismissed Saffold’s claim challenging the
prison’s grievance procedures because “[t]here is no legitimate claim of
entitlement to a grievance procedure.” Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

12-15793 3
Cir. 1988).
The district court properly dismissed Saffold’s retaliation claim because
Saffold failed to allege facts showing that defendants acted with retaliatory intent,
that their actions did not advance a legitimate correctional purpose, and that their
actions chilled his First Amendment rights. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559,
567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth the elements of a § 1983 retaliation claim in
the prison context).
The district court properly dismissed Saffold’s deliberate indifference claim
because Saffold failed to allege facts showing that defendants knew of and
consciously disregarded a serious risk of harm to his health. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (setting forth objective and subjective prongs
of deliberate indifference claim).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --