Dwight Belton v. Randy Grounds , 579 F. App'x 607 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DWIGHT CLAYTON BELTON, No. 13-15927
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-06360-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RANDY GROUNDS, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Former California state prisoner Dwight Clayton Belton appeals pro se from
the district court’s summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging equal protection violations arising from an allegedly racially
discriminatory canteen incident. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
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).
We review de novo, Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2013),
and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Belton failed
to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants acted with an
intent or purpose to discriminate against him on the basis of his race. See Furnace
v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013) (“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or
purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected
class.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Belton’s motion for
appointment of counsel because Belton failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth standard of review and explaining “exceptional circumstances” requirement).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Belton’s requests to
conduct additional discovery of eyewitnesses. See Tatum v. City of San Francisco,
441 F.3d 1090, 1100-01 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review and
explaining that summary judgment is appropriate “[a]bsent a showing by . . .
[plaintiff] that additional discovery would have revealed specific facts precluding
2 13-15927
summary judgment”).
We reject Belton’s contention that the district court did not provide him with
a fair opportunity to prosecute his case.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15927