Michael Williams v. Vickie Madrid

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, No. 14-15907
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-02104-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
VICKIE MADRID, MSW,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted June 22, 2015***
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Michael B. Williams, a pre-trial civil detainee under California’s Sexually
Violent Predators (“SVP”) Act, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Williams 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).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Huftile v.
Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because Williams
failed to allege facts sufficient to state any cognizable claims. See Hebbe v. Pliler,
627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally
construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see
also Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 368-70 (1986) (sexually-dangerous-person
commitment proceedings are not “criminal” within the meaning of the Fifth
Amendment’s guarantee against compulsory self-incrimination); Inouye v. Kemna,
504 F.3d 705, 712 n.7 (9th Cir. 2007) (test for Establishment Clause violation);
Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of retaliation
claim).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-15907