NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUSAN MAE POLK, No. 17-15787
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01156-DAD-
BAM
v.
MARY LATTIMORE, Warden; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Susan Mae Polk appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations. We 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. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes,
*
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).
213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for
failure to comply with federal pleading rules, Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co.,
651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court dismissed Polk’s claims because Polk failed to allege facts
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. All but one were properly dismissed.
See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se
pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
However, in her fourth amended complaint, Polk alleged that, on or about
July 23, 2008, defendant Baron put a “snitch jacket” on Polk, resulting in an attack
on Polk by her cellmate. See Valandingham v. Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135, 1137-38
(9th Cir. 1989) (prisoner’s allegation that officials labeled him a snitch with the
intent of having prisoner killed supported a cause of action under § 1983).
Because it is not clear from the record whether the district court considered this
claim, we vacate the judgment in part and remand for further proceedings on this
claim only, including leave to amend this claim if appropriate. See Weilburg v.
Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal of a pro se complaint
without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies
of the complaint could not be cured by amendment (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
2 17-15787
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
3 17-15787