Opinion
No. 12-17143 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-02586-EFB
04-23-2013
MARK JAMES LYON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. S. THACKER, Defendant - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Edmund F. Brennan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Lyon consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges
Mark James Lyon, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with a psychological assessment used in a Parole Board Hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Dismissal of Lyon's claims for damages was proper because defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (defendant is entitled to qualified immunity unless the conduct at issue violated a clearly established constitutional right). Contrary to Lyon's contentions, the cases he cites on the issue of qualified immunity are inapposite because they involve forced medical intervention, which is not at issue here.
The district court properly dismissed Lyon's claims for injunctive relief because defendant cannot provide the relief that Lyon seeks. See Wilson v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 799 F.2d 591, 592 (9th Cir. 1986) (concluding that case was moot where named defendant could not be directed to do anything that would provide relief).
AFFIRMED.