Opinion
21-15688
03-24-2022
RODNEY BANKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. PELAYO, Correctional Officer at Kern Valley State Prison; A. LEYVA, Correctional Officer at Kern Valley State Prison, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California No. 1:20-cv-00117-DAD-JLT Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
California state prisoner Rodney Banks appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Banks's action because Banks failed to allege facts sufficient to state a 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); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.").
AFFIRMED.