Aaron Stribling v. C. Tobias , 690 F. App'x 972 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AARON L. STRIBLING, No. 16-16738
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00399-MCE-EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
C. TOBIAS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2017**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Aaron L. Stribling appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th
*
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).
Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Stribling’s due process claim involving
a rules violation because Stribling failed to allege facts sufficient to show a
protected liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-85 (1995) (a
prisoner has no federal or state protected liberty interest when the sanction
imposed neither extends the length of his sentence nor imposes an “atypical and
significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison
life”); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro
se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual
allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in severing the excessive force
claims against defendants Blessing, DeFazio, and Guffee because Stribling failed
to demonstrate that these claims arose out of the “same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions or occurrences” and involve a “question of law or fact
common to all defendants.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); see also Coughlin v. Rogers,
130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997) (setting forth standard of review and
explaining the requirements for permissive joinder).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-16738