Miguel Diaz v. Ralph Diaz ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL E. DIAZ, No. 14-16520
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00453-SKO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Miguel E. Diaz, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Diaz consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
claims. 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 § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Diaz’s action because Diaz failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (setting forth requirements for a deliberate indifference
claim); Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“The [Americans with Disabilities Act] prohibits discrimination because of
disability, not inadequate treatment for disability.”); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d
559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).
Because the district court dismissed Diaz’s action for failure to state a claim,
we reject Diaz’s contention that the district court abused its discretion by
dismissing his action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court
order.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-16520