NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSHUA NEIL HARRELL, No. 16-16782
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00470-KJM-EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Joshua Neil Harrell 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. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we
*
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).
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Harrell’s action because Harrell 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 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (elements of a claim under
42 U.S.C. § 1983); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985) (an official
capacity suit is to be treated as a suit against the governmental entity and “a
governmental entity is liable under § 1983 only when the entity itself is a moving
force behind the deprivation[;] the entity’s policy or custom must have played a
part in the violation of federal law” (citations and internal quotation marks)); Starr
v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing
supervisory liability).
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 16-16782