Otis Ray Glenn v. JOSEPH MCGRATH, Warden;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
tk/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OTIS RAY GLENN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH MCGRATH, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15000
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-03908-CRB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Otis Ray Glenn, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison
FILED
MAR 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

tk/Research 09-15000 2
officials denied him due process in connection with the administrative review of a
rules violation report. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes,
213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Glenn’s complaint failed to state a
claim because prisoners “lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific
prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir.
2003). Moreover, to the extent that Glenn challenges the 2002 rules violation
report, his challenge is time-barred. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th
Cir. 2004) (explaining that in section 1983 actions courts apply the forum state’s
statute of limitations for personal injury actions, and noting California’s two-year
statute of limitations for personal injury claims).
Glenn’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Glenn’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --