Williby

MEMORANDUM ***

Harry J. Williby appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants failed to respond adequately to his requests for assistance after he was attacked by a dog and later threatened by an unknown person. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090 , 1094 n. 3 (9th Cir.2006), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the due process claims because Williby did not have a right under the Due Process Clause to receive government protection from the actions of private citizens. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. *882 189, 197 , 109 S.Ct. 998 , 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989) (“As a general matter, ... a State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.”).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on the equal protection claims because Williby did not raise a triable issue as to whether he was intentionally treated differently from similarly situated persons. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens,…