Court Opinion

ID: 9926411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 18:01:19.342165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:50.345190
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 24 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL EDWARD DURAN,                              No. 23-15275

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00181-ADA-HBK

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
D. GOREE, Jr., Appeals Coordinator at
Corcoran State Prison,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                     Ana de Alba, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 17, 2024**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Paul Edward Duran appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

alleging retaliation and due process violations arising from prison disciplinary

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

      *
             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. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th

Cir. 2012). We affirm.

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

allege facts sufficient to show that Goree was involved in issuing any disciplinary

violations, retaliated against Duran, or denied Duran disciplinary procedures he

was due. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70 (1974) (setting forth

minimum requirements of due process in disciplinary hearings); King v. County of

Los Angeles, 885 F.3d 548, 559 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a plaintiff bringing

a § 1983 action must show that a defendant was personally involved in or caused a

constitutional injury); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005)

(setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).

      We do not consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on

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

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                 23-15275