Claude Smith v. C. Boyer

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Claude Raymond Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference, retaliation, and due process claims. We review for an abuse of discretion the failure to grant leave to amend, Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), and discovery rulings, Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith further leave to amend his Eighth Amendment claims against defendants Stockman, Freitas, Hense, Tallerico, and Cordova because Smith could not allege that defendants knew of or disregarded a serious threat to his safety from his cell mate or from being housed at a higher security facility. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir.2013) (leave to amend may be denied where amendment is futile); Phillips v. Ornoski, 673 F.3d 1168, 1179 (9th Cir.2012) (inmates have no right to particular housing); Hearns v. Terhune, 413 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th Cir.2005) (elements of failure to protect claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion…