Davis v. Speer, 071212 FED9, 11-35002

Docket Nº:11-35002
Party Name:NATHANIEL JAMES DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCOTT ALEX SPEER, Lt., Defendant-Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:July 12, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

NATHANIEL JAMES DAVIS, Jr., Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SCOTT ALEX SPEER, Lt., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11-35002

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

July 12, 2012

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted June 26, 2012[**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington No. 3:10-cv-05185-RJB Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Washington state prisoner Nathaniel James Davis, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Davis's claim that defendant Speer violated his due process rights in connection with a disciplinary infraction for failure to provide a urine sample because Davis failed to allege facts sufficient to show that a protected liberty interest was at stake. See Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) (due process protections "adhere only when the disciplinary action implicates a protected liberty interest in some unexpected [manner] or imposes an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed Davis's equal protection claim because Davis failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claim. See Monteiro v. Tempe Union High Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 1998) (equal protection claim "must plead intentional unlawful discrimination or allege facts that are at least susceptible of an inference of discriminatory intent").

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis leave to amend his...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP