Court Opinion

ID: 4924451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-22 20:04:55.220024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:14:14.495652
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 22 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL NIVARD BEATON,                             No. 20-16370

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02039-TLN-CKD

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
U.S. IMMIGRATION, Sacramento Field
Office; IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, Sacramento Field Office,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 14, 2021**

Before:      PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Paul Nivard Beaton appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional

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

      *
             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).
district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d

443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

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

to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d

338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a

plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also

Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (requirements for denial of

access to courts claim); Krainski v. Nev. ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of

Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (a claim for procedural due

process requires a “deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property

interest”).

       Beaton’s motion to include exhibits with his opening brief (Docket Entry

No. 16) is granted.

       AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                  20-16370