NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTWOINE MARQUISE BEALER, No. 18-16182
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00367-LJO-SKO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Antwoine Marquise Bealer appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional claims arising from his transfer to a segregated housing unit. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bealer’s action because Bealer failed to
allege facts sufficient to state plausible claims for relief. 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); see also Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000)
(per curiam) (elements of “class of one” equal protection claim); Hudson v. United
States, 522 U.S. 93, 98-99 (1997) (Double Jeopardy Clause applies only to the
imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense); Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-85 (1995) (a constitutionally protected liberty interest
arises only when a restraint imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the
inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”); Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison
disciplinary proceedings); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731, 734 (9th Cir.
2000) (elements of Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal, see Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009), and we do not
2 18-16182
consider documents not presented to the district court, see United States v. Elias,
921 F.3d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
3 18-16182