Garland Jones v. Mailroom Officials ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 15 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARLAND A. JONES, No. 19-15345
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00281-LJO-SKO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MAILROOM OFFICIALS, CSATF;
MAILROOM OFFICIALS, Valley State
Prison,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Garland A. Jones appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment
claims in connection with his legal mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Resnick v.
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A);
Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jones’s action because Jones failed to
allege facts sufficient state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a
plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Hayes v.
Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1211-12 (9th Cir. 2017) (requirements for a First
Amendment claim arising from the opening of legal mail); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d
1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983 “if there exists
either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a
sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the
constitutional violation” (citation omitted)); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633
(9th Cir. 1988) (under § 1983, the focus is “on the duties and responsibilities of
each individual defendant whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused a
constitutional deprivation”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 19-15345
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-15345