Rodney Banks v. J. Pelayo ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY BANKS, No. 21-15688
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00117-DAD-JLT
v.
MEMORANDUM*
J. PELAYO, Correctional Officer at Kern
Valley State Prison; A. LEYVA,
Correctional Officer at Kern Valley State
Prison,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Rodney Banks appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the
First and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
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).
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure
to state a claim. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Banks’s action because Banks failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42
(9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d
559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in
the prison context); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance
procedure.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-15688