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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 08 2010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