FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES BRIAN HAMILTON, No. 13-16405
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-02084-GSA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted May 13, 2014***
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner James Brian Hamilton appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Hamilton consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
he was subjected to discrimination in violation of his equal protection rights. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,
447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hamilton’s action because Hamilton
failed to allege facts showing that defendants intentionally treated him differently
from others who were similarly situated without a rational basis, see N. Pacifica
LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008), or intentionally
discriminated against him on the basis of his membership in a protected class, see
Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16405