FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 7 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SY LEE CASTLE, No. 10-16372
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01267-JAT
v.
MEMORANDUM *
M. KNOWLES, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Sy Lee Castle appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging a violation of his rights under Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058,
1061 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Castle’s action for monetary damages
because Castle failed to allege facts demonstrating that defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his disability. See Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d
1124, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2001) (claims for monetary relief under Title II of the
ADA require the plaintiff to establish intentional discrimination based on
deliberate indifference, namely, “both knowledge that a harm to a federally
protected right is substantially likely, and a failure to act upon that . . . likelihood”).
Castle’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-16372