Court Opinion

ID: 9560995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:00:52.575602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:28.035518
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS LEE UPTAIN,                              No. 22-16865

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01751-SPL-JZB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
PAUL PENZONE; MARICOPA COUNTY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS; UNKNOWN
PARTY, Listed as Sheriffs Canteen,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Arizona state prisoner Dennis Lee Uptain appeals pro se from the district

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

violations arising from his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28

      *
             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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 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 Uptain’s action because Uptain failed

to allege facts sufficient to show that the jail’s meals or commissary prices put

Uptain at a substantial risk of suffering serious harm, or that defendants

intentionally discriminated against him. See Gordon v. County of Orange, 888

F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth the elements of a claim for

unconstitutional conditions of confinement); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42

(9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that although pro se pleadings are construed liberally,

plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for

relief); SeaRiver Mar. Fin. Holdings, Inc. v. Mineta, 309 F.3d 662, 679 (9th Cir.

2002) (explaining that a “class of one” discrimination claim requires showing a

plaintiff “has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated

and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment”); Barren v.

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (explaining that a

discrimination claim generally requires showing “an intent or purpose to

discriminate” based on membership in a protected class).

      To the extent Uptain intended to raise a due process claim based on the

circumstances of his plea bargain, dismissal was proper because Uptain failed to

allege facts sufficient to show that he was denied any process to which he was due.

                                           2                                       22-16865
See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56 (1985) (“The longstanding test for

determining the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea represents a voluntary

and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the

defendant.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Mathews v. Eldridge,

424 U.S. 319, 333-35 (1976) (setting forth requirements for procedural due process

claim).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Uptain’s

complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.

See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.

2011) (setting forth standard for review and explaining that leave to amend may be

denied where amendment would be futile).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                    22-16865