FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEXIOS ALEXANDER, No. 12-17397
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00445-WBS-
EFB
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MEMORANDUM *
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013 **
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Alexios Alexander appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations concerning his conditions of confinement. 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 the district court’s dismissal for failure to
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th
Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Alexander’s action because Alexander
failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for unconstitutional conditions of
confinement. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (discussing the
subjective prong of deliberate indifference); Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629
F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts need not accept as true allegations that
contradict exhibits attached to a complaint, or allegations that are “merely
conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences”); Hearns
v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (listing the elements of a
conditions of confinement claim and explaining that the circumstances, nature, and
duration of the deprivation are relevant); see also Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517,
519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (holding that claims for injunctive relief “relating
to [a prison’s] policies are moot” when the prisoner has been moved and “he has
demonstrated no reasonable expectation of returning to [the prison]”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alexander’s
multiple requests for appointment of counsel because Alexander failed to
demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970
2 12-17397
(9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and the exceptional circumstances
requirement).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-17397