Case ID: f-appx_694/html/0541-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Matthew G. SILVA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. UTTECHT, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-35683
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2017 
    
    Filed July 19, 2017
    Matthew Garrett Silva, Pro Se
    Timothy J. Feulner, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Corrections Division, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Former Washington state prisoner Matthew G. Silva appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation, access-to-courts, and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district, court properly dismissed Silva’s action because both Silva’s complaint and proposed amended complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 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); see also Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (elements of qn access-to-courts claim and actual injury requirement); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability under § 1983); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of retaliation claim in prison context).

We reject as meritless Silva’s contentions that the district court erred in not requiring defendants to respond to discovery requests, in not considering his proposed amended complaint, and in not ruling on his destruction of property claim.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.