Court Opinion

ID: 9381004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 19:00:48.86265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:29.730576
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND,                             No. 22-15559

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02100-JAM-DMC

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; XAVIER           MEMORANDUM*
BECERRA, Attorney General; KRISTEN K.
CHENELIA, Deputy Attorney General;
TAMI M. KREZIN, Deputy Attorney
General; PAUL E. O’CONNOR, Deputy
Attorney General; SARAH M. BRATTIN,
Deputy Attorney General; LUCAS L.
HENNES, Deputy Attorney General;
JOANNA B. HOOD, Deputy Attorney
General; MATTHEW R. WILSON, Deputy
Attorney General,

                Defendants-Appellees.

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

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      *
             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).
      California state prisoner Joshua Davis Bland appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of the

Contract Clause. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo the 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 Bland’s action because Bland 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, plaintiff

must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see

also RUI One Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 371 F.3d 1137, 1147 (9th Cir. 2004)

(stating framework to review a claim under the Contract Clause).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-15559