Shauntae Taylor v. T. Virga;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SHAUNTAE TAYLOR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
T. VIRGA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-16450
D.C. No. 2:10-CV-02731-WBS-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Shauntae Taylor, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his housing
assignments violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
JAN 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16450 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the 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 Taylor’s failure-to-protect claim
because Taylor failed to allege facts showing that defendants were deliberately
indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm by assigning Taylor to a double
cell. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (“[A] prison official cannot
be found liable [for a failure to prevent harm] unless the official knows of and
disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety[.]”).
The district court properly dismissed Taylor’s due process claim because
Taylor failed to allege facts showing that any of his housing classifications
imposed an atypical and significant hardship on him in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life. See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995).
Taylor’s remaining contentions, including those regarding judicial bias, are
unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --