Court Opinion

ID: 9374697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 19:00:37.512443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.645463
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ISMAEL VILLARREAL,                              No. 21-56194

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01942-VBF-AFM

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for the
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; JEFF MACOMBER,
Warden; KENNETH J. POGUE, CDCR
Director; ANTHONY CARTER; STEVEN
ESCOBAR; P. BIRDSONG, Appeals
Coordinator; CHELSEA ARMENTA, Office
Service Supervisor; S MOORE, Associate
Warden; R. W. SMITH, Chief Deputy
Warden; W. SINKOVICH, Appeals
Examiner,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                 Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

      *
             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).
Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Ismael Villarreal appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with

the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and for failure to

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

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under

28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)

(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Villarreal’s action because Villarreal

failed to allege the bases for his claims and 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, a plaintiff must present factual

allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

      Villarreal’s miscellaneous motion (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied as

unnecessary.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                     21-56194