NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, No. 18-15621
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01940-LJO-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SANJEEV BATRA, Doctor at Coalinga
State Hospital,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent
Predator Act, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Huftile v. Miccio–Fonseca,
410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because Williams
failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. 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); Rhodes
v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim
under § 1983); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 933 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing due
process protections for civil detainees); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 523-26
(9th Cir. 1996) (elements for a procedural due process claim in the pre-trial
detainee context).
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).
We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
2 18-15621
Williams’s request that his pending appeals, Case Nos. 18-15437 and 18-
15621, be assigned to the same merits panel (Docket Entry No. 4) is granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-15621
Michael Williams v. Sanjeev Batra
Combined Opinion