Ismael Villarreal v. Ralph Diaz ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISMAEL VILLARREAL, No. 21-56194
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01942-VBF-AFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for the
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; JEFF MACOMBER,
Warden; KENNETH J. POGUE, CDCR
Director; ANTHONY CARTER; STEVEN
ESCOBAR; P. BIRDSONG, Appeals
Coordinator; CHELSEA ARMENTA, Office
Service Supervisor; S MOORE, Associate
Warden; R. W. SMITH, Chief Deputy
Warden; W. SINKOVICH, Appeals
Examiner,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
*
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).
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ismael Villarreal appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with
the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and for failure to
state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Villarreal’s action because Villarreal
failed to allege the bases for his claims and 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 present factual
allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
Villarreal’s miscellaneous motion (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied as
unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-56194