Summary
holding that a district court properly dismissed a prisoner's equal protection claim regarding prison employment because "the 'class-of-one' theory does not apply in the context of discretionary personnel decisions in public employment."
Summary of this case from Ngaue v. LewisOpinion
No. 19-16555
05-12-2020
CURTIS LEE MORRISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. VIERRA, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00284-JAM-DB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
California state prisoner Curtis Lee Morrison appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an equal protection violation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Morrison's action because the "class-of-one" theory does not apply in the context of discretionary personnel decisions in public employment. See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15 § 3041.1(a) (describing criteria for filling paid inmate work assignments in California prisons); Engquist v. Or. Dep't of Agr., 553 U.S. 591, 605-07 (2008) (class-of-one theory of equal protection does not apply to the public employment context).
Morrison's motions for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry Nos. 3 and 10) are denied.
AFFIRMED.