Brian Darnell Edwards v. M. McDONALD;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BRIAN DARNELL EDWARDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. McDONALD; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17101
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02852-GEB-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Brian Darnell Edwards, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-17101 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A for failure to state a claim. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
2000). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul,
547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Dismissal of Edwards’s First Amendment claim was proper because
Edwards failed to allege facts in his operative complaint demonstrating that
defendants’ actions were not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987) (setting forth four-factor test to
analyze validity of policies or regulations that impinge on an inmate’s First
Amendment rights); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994) (per
curiam) (retaliation claim requires prisoner to show that action does not further
legitimate penological goals). To the extent that Edwards alleges that defendants
improperly interfered with his filing of grievances, he does not have a separate
constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure. See Ramirez v.
Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003).
Dismissal of Edwards’s Eighth Amendment claim was proper because
Edwards failed to allege facts in his operative complaint demonstrating that
defendants disregarded an excessive risk to Edwards’s safety. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (prison official is not liable under the Eighth

-- 2 of 3 --

11-17101 3
Amendment “unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to
inmate health or safety”).
The district court properly dismissed Edwards’s equal protection claim
because Edwards failed to allege facts in his operative complaint demonstrating
that defendants’ actions were racially motivated. See Barren v. Harrington, 152
F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (to establish a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause, plaintiff must show that defendants acted with discriminatory
intent).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Edwards’s motion
for appointment of counsel because Edwards failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth standard of review and requirement of “exceptional circumstances” for
appointment of counsel).
Edwards’s contention that the district court used the improper pleading
standard is unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --