Court Opinion

ID: 3195709
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-04-19 22:00:59.996931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:10.356548
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             APR 19 2016

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MIGUEL E. DIAZ,                                  No. 14-16520

                Plaintiff - Appellant,           D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00453-SKO

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden; et al.,

                Defendants - Appellees.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of California
                    Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

                              Submitted April 13, 2016**

Before:        FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

      Miguel E. Diaz, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

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

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
               Diaz consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,

Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)

(dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)), and we affirm.

         The district court properly dismissed Diaz’s action because Diaz failed to

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Farmer v. Brennan,

511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (setting forth requirements for a deliberate indifference

claim); Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010)

(“The [Americans with Disabilities Act] prohibits discrimination because of

disability, not inadequate treatment for disability.”); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d
559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

         Because the district court dismissed Diaz’s action for failure to state a claim,

we reject Diaz’s contention that the district court abused its discretion by

dismissing his action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court

order.

         AFFIRMED.

                                             2                                      14-16520