Opinion
No. 18-16182
10-26-2018
ANTWOINE MARQUISE BEALER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00367-LJO-SKO MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
California state prisoner Antwoine Marquise Bealer appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from his transfer to a segregated housing unit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 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 Bealer's action because Bealer failed to allege facts sufficient to state plausible claims for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per curiam) (elements of "class of one" equal protection claim); Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 98-99 (1997) (Double Jeopardy Clause applies only to the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-85 (1995) (a constitutionally protected liberty interest arises only when a restraint imposes an "atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life"); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731, 734 (9th Cir. 2000) (elements of Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, see Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009), and we do not consider documents not presented to the district court, see United States v. Elias, 921 F.3d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.