eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2017-12

Nicholas Patrick v. Petroff ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NICHOLAS PATRICK,                               No. 17-16428
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00945-AWI-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PETROFF; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Nicholas Patrick, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
*
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).
1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Patrick’s action because Patrick failed
to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. 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); Farmer v. Brennan,
    511 U.S. 825
    , 833-34 (1994) (setting forth elements of a failure-to-protect claim);
Wilhelm v. Rotman,
    680 F.3d 1113
    , 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth elements of
a medical deliberate indifference claim); Rhodes v. Robinson,
    408 F.3d 559
    , 567-
68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison
context); Serrano v. Francis,
    345 F.3d 1071
    , 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth
elements of an equal protection claim); Witherow v. Paff,
    52 F.3d 264
    , 265 (9th
Cir. 1995) (describing prisoners’ First Amendment right to send and receive mail).
AFFIRMED.
2                                       17-16428