Case Name: Sy Lee CASTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. KNOWLES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-07
Citations: 442 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 10-16372
Parties: Sy Lee CASTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. KNOWLES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 263–264

Head Matter:
Sy Lee CASTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. KNOWLES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-16372.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed July 7, 2011.
Sy Lee Castle, Soledad, CA, pro se.
Constance L. Picciano, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Kenneth T. Roost, Esquire, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Sy Lee Castle appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging a violation of his rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Castle's action for monetary damages because Castle failed to allege facts demonstrating that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his disability. See Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1138-39 (9th Cir.2001) (claims for monetary relief under Title II of the ADA require the plaintiff to establish intentional discrimination based on deliberate indifference, namely, "both knowledge that a harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely, and a failure to act upon that . likelihood").
Castle's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.