Case ID: f-appx_645/html/0601-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LaKeith L. McCOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. S. CACCIOLA, Correctional Officer at California Correctional Institution; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15022.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 24, 2016.
    LaKeith L. McCoy, Tehachapi, CA, pro se.
    Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

LaKeith L. McCoy, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed McCoy’s action because McCoy failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Caccio-la’s conduct was arbitrary, capricious, or did not advance a legitimate correctional goal. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir.2012) (setting forth the elements of a § 1983 retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir.1995) (“The plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving the absence of - legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains.”); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.