Opinion
19-17416
06-24-2022
ROBERT LEE JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TED BLOOM; S. CAMPAIGNE; K. THOMPSON; D. CHAMBERLAIN, Corrections Captain; K. HOFFMAN, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:19-cv-05762-WHA
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
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 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.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).