From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Coleman

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 2, 2013
536 F. App'x 694 (9th Cir. 2013)

Summary

applying this requirement to civil detainees

Summary of this case from Shehee v. Nguyen

Opinion

No. 13-15082 D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01189-GBC

08-02-2013

MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRUCE COLEMAN, Vocational Supervisor at Coalinga State Hospital; GABRIEL DIAZ, Vocational Services Assignment Supervisor at Coalinga State Hospital, Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Gerald B. Cohn, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Williams consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee confined at Coalinga State Hospital pursuant to California's Sexually Violent Predator Act, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging that defendants violated the Thirteenth Amendment and the Fair Labor Standards Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams's action because the allegations in his amended complaint did not "contain[ ] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also U.S. Const. amend. XIII, § 1 (prohibiting involuntarily servitude); Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1324-25 (9th Cir. 1991) (discussing economic reality test to consider for determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists).

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) (per curiam).

Williams's motion filed on March 6, 2013 is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Williams v. Coleman

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 2, 2013
536 F. App'x 694 (9th Cir. 2013)

applying this requirement to civil detainees

Summary of this case from Shehee v. Nguyen
Case details for

Williams v. Coleman

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BRUCE COLEMAN, Vocational…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Aug 2, 2013

Citations

536 F. App'x 694 (9th Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. King

The Ninth Circuit has applied this requirement to civil detainees. See Williams v. Coleman, 536 Fed. Appx.…

Wilson v. King

The Ninth Circuit has applied this requirement to civil detainees. See Williams v. Coleman, 536 Fed. Appx.…