Curtis Lee Morrison v. E. Vierra

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CURTIS LEE MORRISON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

E. VIERRA,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-16555

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

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

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

*
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).
FILED

MAY 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16555
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.