Norman Pickett, Jr. v. E. Hawkins ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NORMAN CHARLES PICKETT, Jr., No. 21-55247
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-08755-GW-E
v.
MEMORANDUM*
E. HAWKINS, Licensed Clinician Social
Worker, individual; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Norman Charles Pickett, Jr., appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
retaliation, deliberate indifference, and due process claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal 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).
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Pickett’s action because Pickett failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d
338, 341-41 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a
plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Jett v.
Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding a plaintiff must demonstrate
harm caused by the alleged deliberate indifference); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d
559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in
the prison context); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance
procedure.”); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[T]here is no
constitutional right to rehabilitation.”).
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).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-55247