Jeremy Crozier v. Adam Endel

MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Jeremy Allen Crozier appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging deliberate indifference, equal protection, and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Crozier’s equal protection claim because he failed to allege that defendants intentionally discriminated against him based on his membership in a suspect class or that their actions lacked any rational basis. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1179-81 (9th Cir.1999).

The district court properly dismissed Crozier’s due process claim because, as Crozier concedes, he only meant to challenge the lack of adequate medical care, a claim more appropriately brought under the Eighth Amendment. See Patel v. Penman, 103 F.3d 868, 874 (9th Cir.1996) (generalized notion of substantive due process is unavailing where another…