T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A LEX I O S A LEX A N D ER, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. C AL I F ORNI A D E P AR T ME NT OF C OR R E C T I ON S AN D R E H A B I L I T A T I O N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 12- 17397 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 2 - c v - 0 0 4 4 5 - W BSEFB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia W i l l i am B . S hubb, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d M ay14, 2013 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , T H O M A S , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C al i forni a s t at e pri soner A l exi os A l exander appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct court ’ s j ud gm entdi sm i ss i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on al l egi ng const i tut i on al vi ol at i on s c on ce rni ng hi s c on di t i on s of c on fi nem ent . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 

# FI LED MA Y22 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 17397 2 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A . R es ni ck v. H ayes , 2 1 3 F .3 d4 4 3 , 4 4 7 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) . W e a f

f i rm. T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed A l exander’ s a ct i on because A l exander f a i l e d t o a l l e ge s uf

f i c i e ntf a c t s t o s t a t e ac l a i m f

orunc ons t i tut i ona l c ondi t i ons of c o n f in e m e n t. See Farm e rv . B r e nnan , 511 U . S . 825, 837 ( 1994) ( di s c us s i ng the s ub je c tiv e p r o n g o f

d e lib e r a te in d if

f e r e n c e ) ; D an i el

s-H al l v. N at ’l E du c. A ss ’n , 629 F . 3d 99 2, 99 8 (9th C i r. 20 10 ) ( court s nee d n otac ce ptas true a l l egat i on s that c o n tr a d ic t e x h ib its a tta c h e dto ac o m p la in t, o ra lle g a tio n s th a t ar e “m e r e ly concl usory, un w arrant ed dedu ct i on s of f ac t , or un re as on abl e i nfer ence s” ); H e arns v . T e rhune , 41 3 F . 3d10 36 , 10 42 (9th C i r. 20 05 ) ( l i st i ng the el em ent s of a c ondi t i ons of

c onf i ne m e ntc l a i m and e xpl a i ni ng tha tthe c i r c um s t anc e s , na tur e , and du r a tio n o f

th e d e p r iv a tio n ar e r e le v an t) ; see a l so Jo h n so n v. Mo o re , 948 F . 2d 517, 519 ( 9th C i r . 1991) ( pe rc ur i am ) ( hol di ng tha tc l a i m s f ori nj unc t i ve r e l i e f

“ r e l a t i ng t o [a pri son’ s] po l i ci es ar e m oo t ” w hen the pri soner has been m ov ed and “ he has dem on strat ed no re as on abl e e xp ec t at i on of re turni ng t o [the pri son] ”) . T h e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n ind en yin g A lex an d er ’s m u ltip le r e qu e s ts f

o rap p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n s e l b e c au s e A le x an d e rf a ile dto d e m o n s tr a te e x c e p tio n a l c ir c u m s tan c e s . See P alm erv. V aldez , 560 F . 3d 965, 97012- 17397 3 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( se tt i ng forth st andard of revi ew and the except i on alci rc um st ance s re qu i re m ent ). AF F I RME D.