Joshua Bland v. State of California ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND, No. 22-15559
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02100-JAM-DMC
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; XAVIER MEMORANDUM*
BECERRA, Attorney General; KRISTEN K.
CHENELIA, Deputy Attorney General;
TAMI M. KREZIN, Deputy Attorney
General; PAUL E. O’CONNOR, Deputy
Attorney General; SARAH M. BRATTIN,
Deputy Attorney General; LUCAS L.
HENNES, Deputy Attorney General;
JOANNA B. HOOD, Deputy Attorney
General; MATTHEW R. WILSON, Deputy
Attorney General,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
California state prisoner Joshua Davis Bland appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of the
Contract Clause. 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 Bland’s action because Bland 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, plaintiff
must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see
also RUI One Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 371 F.3d 1137, 1147 (9th Cir. 2004)
(stating framework to review a claim under the Contract Clause).
AFFIRMED.
2 22-15559