Francis W. Davis v. PETERSON, Correctional Officer, California Department of Corrections;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
FRANCIS W. DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PETERSON, Correctional Officer,
California Department of Corrections; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-17231
D.C. No. 1:06-cv-01062-AWI-
GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Francis W. Davis appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
FILED
OCT 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-17231 2
retaliation and violations of his equal protection and due process rights. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a grant of summary
judgment, Bruce v. Ylst, 351 F.3d 1283, 1287 (9th Cir. 2003), and a dismissal for
failure to state a claim, Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 2009).
We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Forest Guardians v. U.S.
Forest Serv., 329 F.3d 1089, 1097 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Davis’s retaliation
claims because he did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the
defendants’ actions were based on a retaliatory motive and not a legitimate
correctional goal. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005)
(indicating that an essential element to a First Amendment retaliation claim is not
satisfied when there is a legitimate correctional goal for the action taken).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Davis’s equal
protection claims because he did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether he was intentionally treated differently from similarly situated inmates.
See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2005).
Dismissal of the due process claims was proper because Davis had no
protected interest in avoiding either confinement to his cell for several hours or the

-- 2 of 3 --

09-17231 3
destruction of two sculptures made of state-issued items. See Sandin v. Conner,
515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995); Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Davis’s requests for
appointment of counsel because Davis failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d
1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).
Davis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Davis’s motion for injunctive relief is denied without prejudice.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --