Arellano v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 693 F. App'x 615

Plaintiff Raul Arellano, a California state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting due process, access-to-courts, denial of telephone access, retaliation, conspiracy, and property-deprivation claims.
The district court dismissed the complaint under screening statutes (28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A / 1915(e)(2)).
Arellano alleged prison officials deprived him of property, mishandled grievances, interfered with telephone access, obstructed access to courts, and retaliated (including denial of an appeal) for filing grievances.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and considered whether any claims were plausible or had adequate postdeprivation remedies.
The panel affirmed dismissal of most claims but found the retaliation claim against defendant Olson—based on an alleged denial of an appeal in retaliation for grievances—was sufficiently pleaded to survive dismissal and remanded as to that defendant only.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Deprivation of property (Due Process)	Arellano: loss of property violated due process	Defendants: California provides adequate postdeprivation remedies	Dismissed — adequate state postdeprivation remedy (Hudson/Barnett).
Grievance-processing (Due Process)	Arellano: improper grievance handling violated due process	Defendants: no constitutional entitlement to specific grievance procedures	Dismissed — no separate constitutional right (Ramirez).
Access-to-courts	Arellano: interference prevented meaningful access to courts	Defendants: no actual prejudice shown	Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege actual injury (Lewis).
Telephone access (First Amendment)	Arellano: denial of telephone access	Defendants: facts do not establish denial	Dismissed — allegations do not show denial (Keenan).
Retaliation and conspiracy (various defendants)	Arellano: defendants retaliated and conspired against him for grievances	Defendants: insufficient factual allegations to show retaliation or conspiracy	Dismissed as to all defendants except Olson; retaliation claim against Olson survives screening.

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (deprivation of property by state employee; postdeprivation remedy suffices)
Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 1994) (California law provides adequate postdeprivation remedy)
Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2003) (no separate constitutional right to a particular prison grievance procedure)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (actual injury required to state access-to-courts claim)
Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1996) (prisoner telephone access as First Amendment concern)
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for surviving screening under §1915A / §1915(e))
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of prison retaliation claim)
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings must still plead plausible claims)
Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1992) (specific facts required to allege conspiracy)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate court will not consider arguments raised first on appeal)