Court Opinion

ID: 9840942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 19:02:51.14026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:32:01.666412
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LYRALISA LAVENA STEVENS,                        No. 22-16850

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:22-cv-00741-ADA-SAB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
S. SMITH; C. MARTINEZ; A. SHIMMIN,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                     Ana de Alba, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Former California state prisoner Lyralisa Lavena Stevens appeals pro se

from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim her 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)

(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Stevens’s action because Stevens failed

to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627

F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally

construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a

plausible claim for relief); see also Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707

F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013) (elements of an equal protection claim under the

Fourteenth Amendment); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996)

(explaining that “disrespectful and assaultive comments” do not necessarily state a

claim under the Eighth Amendment).

      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). We do not

consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias,

921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

      Stevens’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is denied

as unnecessary.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                     22-16850