James Battle v. Travel Lodge Motel

MEMORANDUM

James Arthur Battle, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleg ing defendants violated his constitutional rights during the period after his arrest and before his incarceration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Battle’s equal protection claims because Battle failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants intentionally discriminated against him based upon his membership in a protected class. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order).

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Battle’s due process claims because Battle failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ conduct “shocks the conscience.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845-49 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998).

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Battle’s conspiracy claims because Battle failed to identify anyone with whom the…