Cameron Hooker v. DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden;

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).
GT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAMERON HOOKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DERRAL G. ADAMS, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17151
D.C. No. 1:04-cv-06584-LJO-DLB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Cameron Hooker, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in his action alleging defendants violated his rights
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

GT/Research 08-17151 2
under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Gibson v. County
of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175, 1180 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
Summary judgment was proper because Hooker failed to raise a triable issue
as to whether he had a cognizable disability such that defendants had the obligation
to permit him to possess a type-writer otherwise prohibited by prison rules. See
Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1153 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A public agency may
require reasonable evidence of a disability before providing accommodations.”).
Hooker’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --