Opinion
23-15275
01-24-2024
PAUL EDWARD DURAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. GOREE, Jr., Appeals Coordinator at Corcoran State Prison, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00181-ADA-HBK of California Ana de Alba, District Judge, Presiding
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Paul Edward Duran appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations arising from prison disciplinary proceedings. 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 Duran's action because Duran failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Goree was involved in issuing any disciplinary violations, retaliated against Duran, or denied Duran disciplinary procedures he was due. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70 (1974) (setting forth minimum requirements of due process in disciplinary hearings); King v. County of Los Angeles, 885 F.3d 548, 559 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a plaintiff bringing a § 1983 action must show that a defendant was personally involved in or caused a constitutional injury); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).
We do not consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).