Case ID: f-appx_577/html/0677-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Brian HAMILTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-16405.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 30, 2014.
    James Brian Hamilton, Hemet, CA, pro se.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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.