Court Opinion

ID: 6354354
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-24 20:00:33.486514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:49:37.826402
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 24 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT LEE JENKINS,                             No. 19-17416

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:19-cv-05762-WHA

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
TED BLOOM; S. CAMPAIGNE; K.
THOMPSON; D. CHAMBERLAIN,
Corrections Captain; K. HOFFMAN,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                    William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 15, 2022**

Before:      SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Robert Lee Jenkins appeals pro se from the district

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

violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

      *
             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).
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 Jenkins’s action because Jenkins 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 allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Rhodes v. Robinson,

408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation

claim in the prison context); see also Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of L.A., 759

F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2014) (although the court accepts as true factual

allegations in a complaint, it need not accept as true allegations that contradict

matters incorporated by reference).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    19-17416