FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EBONE LEROY EAST, No. 11-16034
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-01739-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted June 26, 2012 ***
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Ebone Leroy East appeals pro se from the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
East 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).
violations in connection with a prison gang validation. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. §1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a),
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed East’s due process and defamation
claims because East failed to allege facts showing he was denied due process or
deprived of a protected liberty or property interest. See Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d
1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003) (prison gang validation decisions need only be
supported by “some evidence,” and prison officials need only provide the inmate
with some notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to present his
views); see also Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712 (1976) (§ 1983 defamation claim
requires violation of protected liberty or property interest).
The district court properly dismissed East’s equal protection claim because
East failed to allege facts demonstrating that defendants acted with the intent to
discriminate against him 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).
The district court properly dismissed East’s First Amendment claim because
the prison’s reliance on evidence that East associated with gang members was
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Stefanow v. McFadden,
103 F.3d 1466, 1472 (9th Cir. 1996) (prison actions affecting First Amendment
2 11-16034
rights are permissible when reasonably related to legitimate interest of prison
security); see also Bruce, 351 F.3d at 1289 (“It is clear . . . that prisons have a
legitimate penological interest in stopping prison gang activity.”).
The district court properly dismissed East’s Eighth Amendment claim
alleging deliberate indifference to safety because East did not allege facts showing
that he was subjected to a substantial risk of serious harm as a result of his gang
validation. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (deliberate
indifference claim requires showing that defendants knowingly disregarded a
serious risk of harm to plaintiff’s health or safety).
East’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-16034