Michael Gaddy v. C. Ducart ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL JOHN GADDY, No. 19-15149
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:18-cv-04558-HSG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
C. E. DUCART, Associate Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Michael John Gaddy appeals pro se the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth
Amendment and due process claims relating to the calculation of his parole
eligibility date. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
*
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).
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 Gaddy’s action because Gaddy failed
to allege facts sufficient to show that his parole eligibility date was miscalculated.
See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se
pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Cal. Penal Code § 1170.1(c)
(discussing aggregation of consecutive sentences for in-prison offenses).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Gaddy’s pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 9 and 11) are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-15149