FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KELVIN HOUSTON, No. 13-15038
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00178-GEB-
EFB
v.
MIKE KNOWLES, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Kelvin Houston appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among other
claims, that defendants wrongfully placed and retained him in administrative
segregation in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th
Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Houston’s due process claim because
Houston failed to allege sufficient facts to show that defendants violated his
constitutional rights by placing him in administrative segregation. See Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) (no due process violation if restraint imposed
is not an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life”).
The district court properly dismissed Houston’s equal protection claim
because Houston failed to allege sufficient facts to show that he has been treated
differently from any other similarly situated persons without a rational basis, see
Engquist v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591, 601-03 (2008), or that he was
intentionally discriminated against on the basis of his membership in a protected
class, see Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15038