Court Opinion

ID: 9640265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:01:57.97266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:25.379996
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES EDWARD ALLEN,                           No. 22-55712

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00602-LAB-MDD

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for the
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; W. L. MONTGOMERY,
Acting Warden; MARTINEZ, Food
Manager; TRAVIS, Supervising Cook; J.
LYON, Food Manager,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of California
                    Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

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

      California state prisoner Charles Edward Allen appeals pro se from the

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

      *
             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).
defendants violated his First and Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide

sufficient meals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo. 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 Allen’s action because Allen 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 to be liberally construed, a

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

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

plaintiff must allege facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was

personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.”); see also Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (to establish an Eighth Amendment claim, a

prison “official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be

drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the

inference”).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                     22-55712