Simmons v. Lamarque , 412 F. App'x 958 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 25 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS, JR.,                      No. 07-16551
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. CV-03-04509-JW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ANTHONY A. LAMARQUE, Warden; et
    al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    James Ware, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted January 10, 2011 **
    Before:        BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Melvin Joseph Simmons, Jr., a California prisoner, appeals pro se from the
    district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     alleging
    *
    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).
    07-16551
    that he was beaten by another prisoner as a result of prison officials’ deliberate
    indifference to his safety when transporting the prisoners together. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a district court’s
    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 for an abuse of discretion its denial of leave
    to amend, Halet v. Wend Inv. Co., 
    672 F.2d 1305
    , 1310 (9th Cir. 1982). We
    affirm.
    Simmons failed to state a deliberate indifference claim because he did not
    allege sufficient facts to establish that prison officials had reason to suspect another
    inmate would attack Simmons. See Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 837 (1994)
    (for claim of deliberate indifference to harm, prison official must be aware of facts
    from which he could infer the existence of a substantial risk of serious harm).
    Simmons failed to state an equal protection claim because he did not allege
    facts establishing an intent or purpose to discriminate against him based upon his
    membership in a protected class. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 
    425 F.3d 1158
    , 1166 (9th Cir. 2005).
    We deny Simmons’s requests for appointment of counsel and
    disqualification of the district court judge.
    Simmons’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     07-16551