Gregory Ellis v. Circle K Stores Inc. ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY MICHEAL ELLIS, No. 20-15666
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00228-DJH-JFM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CIRCLE K STORES INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Micheal Ellis 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. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
*
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).
2012). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul,
547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ellis’s claims against defendants Circle
K Stores Inc. and Phoenix Municipal Court because Ellis failed to allege facts
sufficient to 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
present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also
Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir. 2012) (a private entity is
liable under § 1983 only if the entity acted under color of state law); Simmons v.
Sacramento Cty. Superior Court, 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (state courts,
as an arm of state government, have Eleventh Amendment immunity).
Dismissal of Ellis’s claims against defendants Phoenix Police Department
and Phoenix District Attorney’s Office was proper because Ellis failed to allege
facts sufficient to show that he suffered a constitutional violation as a result of an
official policy or custom. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060,
1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing requirements to establish municipal
liability).
We reject as unpersuasive Ellis’s contention that the district judge erred by
dismissing his action without oral argument.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-15666