Court Opinion

ID: 5119751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-20 20:00:47.98743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:56.090409
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 20 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT LEE STEWART, Jr.,                        No. 21-15061

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00979-SPL-ESW

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MARICOPA COUNTY JAIL; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

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

                           Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before:      TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Arizona state prisoner Robert Lee Stewart, Jr. appeals pro se from the

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

inadequate medical care and conditions-of-confinement claims arising from his

pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

      *
             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).
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 Stewart’s action because Stewart failed

to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Gordon v. County of

Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth objective

deliberate indifference standard for Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical

care and conditions-of-confinement claims brought by pretrial detainees); Castro v.

County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc)

(discussing requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v.

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d

338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a

plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim).

      Stewart’s motion for a response from the court (Docket Entry No. 11) is

denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                    21-15061