Michael Williams v. Vickie Madrid , 609 F. App'x 421 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED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