Edwin N. Gonzalez v. JOHN DOE, Correctional Officer;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EDWIN N. GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN DOE, Correctional Officer; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-56567
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01962-W-POR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Edwin N. Gonzalez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations concerning the maintenance of allegedly false information
FILED
SEP 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-56567 2
in his Central File and his placement on a contraband watch. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108,
1117 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal for failure to exhaust); Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d
891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gonzalez’s First and Eighth
Amendment claims because Gonzalez failed to exhaust administrative remedies
before filing his second amended complaint. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81,
85, 93-95 (2006) (requiring proper exhaustion); Griffin v. Arpaio, 577 F.3d 1117,
1120-21 (9th Cir. 2009) (grievances must give notice of claim).
The district court properly dismissed Gonzalez’s procedural due process
claim because even assuming that a liberty interest was at stake, Gonzalez failed to
allege facts showing a lack of process. See Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1090
(9th Cir. 2008) (procedural due process violation requires a deprivation of a
protected liberty interest by the government and lack of process).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --