From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Castle v. Knowles

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 7, 2011
442 F. App'x 263 (9th Cir. 2011)

Opinion

No. 10-16372.

Submitted June 15, 2011.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

July 7, 2011.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01267-JAT.

Before: CANBY, O'SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.


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.


Summaries of

Castle v. Knowles

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 7, 2011
442 F. App'x 263 (9th Cir. 2011)
Case details for

Castle v. Knowles

Case Details

Full title:SY LEE CASTLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. KNOWLES, Warden; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 7, 2011

Citations

442 F. App'x 263 (9th Cir. 2011)