Ricardo M. Somoza v. Charles D. Marshall, Warden

15 F.3d 1089 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Ricardo M. SOMOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Warden, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-16160. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 4, 1994. * Decided Jan. 12, 1994. Before: REINHARDT, O'SCANNLAIN, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Ricardo M. Somoza, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his civil rights action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915 (d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion, Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992), and affirm. 3 Somoza's complaint, filed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleged that officials at Pelican Bay State Prison violated his eighth and fourteenth amendment rights by placing him in the general population with prisoners who are hostile toward him, despite his documented need for protective custody. Somoza alleged he was…