Michael Williams v. Vickie Madrid

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 1 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, No. 14-15907 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-02104-MJS v. MEMORANDUM* VICKIE MADRID, MSW, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted June 22, 2015*** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Michael B. Williams, a pre-trial civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predators (“SVP”) Act, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** Williams consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to state any cognizable claims. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 368-70 (1986) (sexually-dangerous-person commitment proceedings are not “criminal” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against compulsory self-incrimination); Inouye v. Kemna, 504 F.3d 705, 712 n.7 (9th Cir. 2007) (test for Establishment Clause violation); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of retaliation claim). AFFIRMED. 2 14-15907