Case ID: f-appx_699/html/0720-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tony TRAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. DAVEY, Warden, Corcoran State Prison, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-16175
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 23, 2017 
    
    Filed October 26, 2017
    Tony Tran, Pro Se
    Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Tony Tran appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging interference with mail and violation of Tran’s right to access the courts. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. '§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Tran’s action because Tran failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant personally participated in the alleged rights deprivation. See Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (outlining requirement of personal participation in alleged constitutional violation); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements for supervisory liability under § 1983).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Tran’s motion for appointment of counsel because Tran did not establish exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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