Court Opinion

ID: 6344442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-05-26 20:00:47.361638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:22.010525
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 26 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCUS J. MOORE,                                No. 21-16229

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:20-cv-01672-DAD-EPG

 v.

R. SCHLICHTING, C/O at Sierra                   MEMORANDUM*
Conservation Center,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 17, 2022**

Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Marcus J. Moore appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging sexual assault,

sexual harassment, and violation of his right to due process by prison officials. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's

      *
             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).
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 Moore’s Eighth Amendment claims

because Moore failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See

Bearchild v. Cobban, 947 F.3d 1130, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2020) (setting forth the

elements for a claim of sexual assault by a correctional officer); Austin v. Terhune,

367 F.3d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 2004) (concluding that sexual gesturing from a

control booth was not sufficiently serious to constitute an Eighth Amendment

violation); see also 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).

      The district court properly dismissed Moore’s due process claim arising

from a prison disciplinary hearing where his good-time credits were forfeited

because it is not cognizable as a § 1983 claim. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S.

641, 646-48 (1997) (holding that a claim for monetary and declaratory relief

challenging the validity of procedures used to deprive a prisoner of good-time

credits is not cognizable under § 1983).

      Moore’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 5) is denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     21-16229