Valles v. Newsom

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANK VALLES, No. 25-277 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 1:24-cv-00379-JLT-BAM v. MEMORANDUM* GAVIN NEWSOM; MARTIN GAMBOA; S. GATES; J. NASH; KRAMER; JEFF MACOMBER; CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 17, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, OWENS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Frank Valles appeals pro se from the district court’s * 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). judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Valles’s action because Valles failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (holding that to establish Eighth Amendment liability, a plaintiff must show that the defendant knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). AFFIRMED. 2 25-277