Alexander Rashad Hamilton v. RON DAVIS, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEXANDER RASHAD HAMILTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RON DAVIS, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16495
D.C. No. 4:19-cv-01223-JST
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 9, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: OWENS, BADE, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Alexander Rashad Hamilton, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the
district court’s dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of his civil rights action
concerning prison disciplinary proceedings at San Quentin State Prison. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo. Hayes v. Idaho Corr.
* 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
NOV 12 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
1. Hamilton did not state an Eighth Amendment claim that certain
defendants failed to supervise or properly train the officers who searched Chism—
another inmate who allegedly stabbed Hamilton. See Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d
1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating prison officials have a duty to “protect
prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners” (quoting Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994))). He named as defendants only the
supervisors, not the officers who conducted the search, and there is no respondeat
superior liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th
Cir. 1989). The amended complaint did not sufficiently allege that the defendants
were aware of an excessive risk to Hamilton’s safety and disregarded this risk. See
Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1243 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding conclusory
allegations that supervisor promulgated unconstitutional policies and procedures
that authorized unconstitutional conduct of subordinates did not suffice to state a
claim of supervisory liability); Taylor, 880 F.2d at 1045 (recognizing that
supervisor may be liable if he knew of a violation and failed to act to prevent it).
2. Hamilton failed to state an equal protection claim because the
amended complaint did not plausibly allege that defendants singled him out for
less favorable treatment based on his commitment offense. See Byrd v. Phx. Police
Dep’t, 885 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2018) (“To survive § 1915A review, a

-- 2 of 4 --

3
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)); Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1167–68 (9th Cir. 2005)
(outlining requirements for a “class of one” equal protection claim).
3. The amended complaint did not state a due process claim.
“[P]risoners have liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause only where
the contemplated restraint ‘imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate
in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.’” Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083,
1088 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995)). The
only cognizable restraint on liberty that we can discern from Hamilton’s amended
complaint is that prison officials rehoused him in a security housing unit and he
lost certain privileges based on charges that he battered inmate Chism with a
weapon.
Even assuming this restraint imposed atypical and significant hardship on
Hamilton, he failed to either state a cognizable claim or allege sufficient facts to
support any cognizable claim. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455
(1985) (stating “some evidence” must support prison disciplinary decision to
comply with due process); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563–68 (1974)
(outlining due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings); Ponte v.
Real, 471 U.S. 491, 497 (1985) (explaining valid prohibitions on calling witnesses

-- 3 of 4 --

4
at prison disciplinary hearings); Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir.
2009) (explaining that failure to follow internal prison policy does not amount to a
constitutional violation).
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --