Ismael Villarreal v. Ralph Diaz

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ISMAEL VILLARREAL, No. 21-56194 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01942-VBF-AFM v. MEMORANDUM* RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; JEFF MACOMBER, Warden; KENNETH J. POGUE, CDCR Director; ANTHONY CARTER; STEVEN ESCOBAR; P. BIRDSONG, Appeals Coordinator; CHELSEA ARMENTA, Office Service Supervisor; S MOORE, Associate Warden; R. W. SMITH, Chief Deputy Warden; W. SINKOVICH, Appeals Examiner, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2023** * 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). Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Ismael Villarreal appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Villarreal’s action because Villarreal failed to allege the bases for his claims and 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, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). Villarreal’s miscellaneous motion (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 2 21-56194