Case Name: Anthony Wayne JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE; Anthony Hedgpeth, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-06
Citations: 449 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 10-16774
Parties: Anthony Wayne JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE; Anthony Hedgpeth, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 449
Pages: 613–613

Head Matter:
Anthony Wayne JOHNSON, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE; Anthony Hedgpeth, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-16774.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 11, 2011.
Filed Sept. 6, 2011.
Anthony Wayne Johnson, Jr., Soledad, CA, pro se.
Before: THOMAS, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, 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 prisoner Anthony Wayne Johnson, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal of Johnson's complaint without leave to amend under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
Johnson failed to allege facts demonstrating that Defendant acted with intent to discriminate against him on the basis of his membership in any protected class. Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir.2005) (plaintiff alleging an equal protection violation "must show that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson's motion to alter the judgment under Rule 59(e) and allow an amended complaint under Rule 15(a). See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (listing requirements for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.