Jonathan Morgan v. CDC , 362 F. App'x 730 ( 2010 )

FILED
JAN 19 2010
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONATHAN MORGAN, No. 08-17063
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:05-cv-00620-LJO-
WMW
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM *
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
**
Submitted January 11, 2010
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jonathan Morgan, a paraplegic and former inmate of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), appeals pro se from the
*
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).
district court judgment dismissing his action brought under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to
state a claim. Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 578 F.3d
1016, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
Here, Morgan’s complaint does not state a claim of discrimination or
retaliation under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132 and 12203(a), because Morgan’s
conclusory allegations in the complaint are contradicted by his exhibits, which
show that CDCR transferred Morgan to the Secure Housing Unit because of
Morgan’s refusal to comply with prison grooming regulations and to accept an
ADA-modified double-bunk cell. See Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052
(9th Cir. 2002); Steckman v. Hart Brewing, 143 F.3d 1293, 1295-96 (9th Cir. 1998)
(“[W]e are not required to accept as true conclusory allegations which are
contradicted by documents referred to in the complaint.”).
The district court properly dismissed Morgan’s section 1983 claims because
CDCR is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See Will v. Michigan
Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989).
We have considered and reject all other contentions raised on appeal.
AFFIRMED.