Opinion
20-16808
08-25-2022
LEANDRO LEONEL GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. VALENCIA, Correctional Sergeant; GOYTIA, Correctional Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted August 17, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 2:19-cv-00338-KJM-DB for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
California state prisoner Leonardo Leonel Gonzalez appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging sexual assault by prison officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the 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 Gonzalez's action because Gonzalez failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Bearchild v. Cobban, 947 F.3d 1130, 1144-45 (9th Cir. 2020) (setting forth the elements for a claim of sexual assault by a correctional officer); Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1525, 1526 (9th Cir. 1993) (en banc) (the Eighth Amendment prohibits "only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain"; "momentary discomfort caused by the search procedures" does not meet the "constitutional standard for a finding of pain" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also 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).
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).