Case Name: Nicholas PATRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETROFF; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-26
Citations: 708 F. App'x 389
Docket Number: No. 17-16428
Parties: Nicholas PATRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETROFF; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 708
Pages: 389–389

Head Matter:
Nicholas PATRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PETROFF; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16428
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 26, 2017
Nicholas Patrick, Pro Se
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nicholas Patrick, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Patrick's action because Patrick failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833-34, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) (setting forth elements of a failure-to-proteet claim); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth elements of a medical deliberate indifference claim); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth elements of an equal protection claim); Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (describing prisoners' First Amendment right to send and receive mail).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,