Shauntae Taylor v. T. Virga , 467 F. App'x 575 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JAN 24 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SHAUNTAE TAYLOR,                                  No. 11-16450
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:10-CV-02731-WBS-
    GGH
    v.
    T. VIRGA; et al.,                                 MEMORANDUM *
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted January 17, 2012 **
    Before:        LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Shauntae Taylor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
    court’s judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that his housing
    assignments violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28
    *
    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).
    U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
    § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Taylor’s failure-to-protect claim
    because Taylor failed to allege facts showing that defendants were deliberately
    indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm by assigning Taylor to a double
    cell. See Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot
    be found liable [for a failure to prevent harm] unless the official knows of and
    disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety[.]”).
    The district court properly dismissed Taylor’s due process claim because
    Taylor failed to allege facts showing that any of his housing classifications
    imposed an atypical and significant hardship on him in relation to the ordinary
    incidents of prison life. See Sandin v. Connor, 
    515 U.S. 472
    , 486 (1995).
    Taylor’s remaining contentions, including those regarding judicial bias, are
    unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    11-16450
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-16450

Citation Numbers: 467 F. App'x 575

Judges: Callahan, Leavy, Tallman

Filed Date: 1/24/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023