Quoc Xuong Luu v. R. BABCOCK, Lieutenant;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QUOC XUONG LUU,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
R. BABCOCK, Lieutenant; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15704
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02262-LKK-
DAD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Quoc Xuong Luu, a former California prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to the
screening provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
NOV 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-15704 2
§ 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000).
We affirm.
After giving Luu specific notice of the deficiencies in Luu’s original
complaint and giving leave to submit an amended complaint, the district court
properly dismissed Luu’s due process claim concerning his temporary loss of
prison privileges because Luu failed to allege facts implicating a protected liberty
interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (protected liberty interest
arises only when a restraint exceeds an inmate’s sentence in “an unexpected
manner” or imposes “atypical, significant deprivation on the inmate in relation to
the ordinary incidents of prison life”). The district court properly dismissed the
remaining claims because Luu did not allege facts sufficient to show that the
defendants deprived him of a constitutional right. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511
U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (to violate the Eighth Amendment “a prison official’s act or
omission must result in the denial of ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s
necessities’” (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981))); Serrano v.
Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003) (to state equal protection claim,
plaintiff must show that defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate
against him based upon his membership in a protected class).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --