Lakeith McCoy v. Toni O'Neill , 609 F. App'x 450 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LaKEITH L. McCOY, AKA LaKeith No. 14-56334
LeRoy McCoy,
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-08674-RGK-
Plaintiff - Appellant, DFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TONI CAREL O’NEILL, in individual
capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner LaKeith L. McCoy, a.k.a. LaKeith LeRoy McCoy,
appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging various constitutional violations in connection with his criminal
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
trial transcript. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We may affirm on any basis
supported by the record. Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
Dismissal of McCoy’s action was proper because McCoy failed to allege
facts sufficient to show that defendants violated his constitutional rights. See
Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2011) (to
establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show a deprivation of a right secured by
the Constitution and laws of the United States); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a
plaintiff still must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief).
To the extent that McCoy seeks a new trial or alleges that his conviction was
invalid, dismissal was proper because success in this action would necessarily
demonstrate the invalidity of McCoy’s confinement. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544
U.S. 74, 80-82 (2005) (a prisoner’s § 1983 action is barred if success “would
necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration[,]” unless “the
2 14-56334
conviction or sentence has already been invalidated” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
McCoy’s contentions regarding his ability to file objections and to obtain
discovery are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-56334