Dougal Samuels v. Pam Ahlin
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Dougal Samuels, who is civilly committed in the State of California, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with contracting valley fever. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Samuels’s Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claims because Samuels failed to allege facts showing that defendants discriminated against him because of a disability. See Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1021-22 (9th Cir.2010) (setting forth elements of ADA claim and explaining that “[t]he ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate treatment for disability”).
The district court properly dismissed Samuels’s equal protection claim because Samuels failed to allege facts showing that he was discriminated against because of his membership in a protected class, see Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir.2013), or that he was…