Bobby Daniels v. Kuzil Ruan
Bobby Joe DANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kuzil RUAN, Lieutenant; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Ferdinand F. Fernandez (author), Gould, Smith
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BOBBY JOE DANIELS, No. 08-56550 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:05-cv-00922-L-NLS v. MEMORANDUM * KUZIL RUAN, Lieutenant; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 16, 2010 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bobby Joe Daniels, 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 arising from a disciplinary * 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). conviction for possession of an inmate-manufactured weapon. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Berg v. Popham, 412 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the retaliation claim because Daniels failed to allege facts indicating that his transfer to the Security Housing Unit at California Correctional Institution “did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 568 (9th Cir. 2005).
The district court properly dismissed the failure to protect claim because Daniels did not allege facts showing that defendants were “deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm . . . .” Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 913 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
The district court properly dismissed the due process claim challenging several aspects of the disciplinary hearing because success on this claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of the revocation of Daniels’s good-time credits.
See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646-47 (1997).
Daniels’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
This court is unable to act on Daniels’s March 10, 2009 request for an inmate trust account statement, and therefore denies the request.
AFFIRMED.
DS/Research 2 08-56550