Scott James Craft v. Anita Ahuja;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT JAMES CRAFT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANITA AHUJA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56933
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01179-VBF-
JEM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Scott James Craft appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations in connection with restitution payments. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
FEB 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-56933 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.
1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The district court properly construed Craft’s habeas petition as a 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 civil rights complaint. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir.
2003) (“[H]abeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action [is] proper, where a
successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily shorten the
prisoner’s sentence.”).
The district court properly dismissed Craft’s substantive due process claim
based on restitution deductions from his inmate trust account because California
Penal Code § 2085.5, requiring the California Director of Corrections to make
deductions from the wages and trust account deposits of prisoners for payment of
restitution obligations, is rationally related to legitimate state interests in
compensating crime victims. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). The
district court also properly dismissed Craft’s procedural due process claim because
the deductions were effected by a valid act of the California legislature and the
legislative process satisfies the requirements of procedural due process. See
Halverson v. Skagit County., 42 F.2d 1257, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[G]eneral
notice as provided by law is sufficient.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-56933 3
The district court properly dismissed Craft’s claims arising from defendants’
processing of and response to his grievances because prisoners do not have a
“separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.”
Ramirez, 334 F.3d at 860.
The district court properly dismissed Craft’s claim against defendant Ahuja
because Craft’s contention that Ahuja deprived him of due process by denying his
claim does not state a colorable due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v.
Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (contention that decision-maker
misapplied law to facts of case did not state a colorable due process claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting Corbin’s and
Davis’s motion to set aside the entry of default and denying Craft’s motion for a
default judgment. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986)
(reviewing for an abuse of discretion and noting that default judgments are
ordinarily disfavored).
Craft’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --