Case Name: Anthony Lyle TARKINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-29
Citations: 372 F. App'x 752
Docket Number: No. 09-16098
Parties: Anthony Lyle TARKINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 752–753

Head Matter:
Anthony Lyle TARKINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeanne S. WOODFORD; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-16098.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 29, 2010.
Anthony Lyle Tarkington, Represa, CA, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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
Anthony Lyle Tarkington, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from a prison riot. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Tarkington did not allege facts sufficient to show that the defendants deprived him of a constitutional or federal right. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (holding that a plaintiff alleging deliberate indifference to safety must show that a prison official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to safety); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (explaining that a plaintiff alleging excessive force must show that a prison official acted maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm, rather than in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline); Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 274, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976) (stating that prisoners have no liberty interest in a particular security classification).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by severing Granvil Bell III from the action and requiring Taridngton to file an amended complaint solely on his own behalf. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1297 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that district courts have broad discretion regarding severance).
Tarkingtoris remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.