NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARY VANDERMEULEN, No. 18-17198
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-03828-JAT-DMF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES L. RYAN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Cary VanDerMeulen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a variety of constitutional claims.
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. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington,
*
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).
152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed VanDerMeulen’s action because
VanDerMeulen 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 to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient
to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S.
403, 413-15 (2002) (requirements for denial of access-to-courts claim); Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 837 (1994) (to challenge his conditions of
confinement, a prisoner must show both that he was subjected to a sufficiently
serious deprivation and that defendants knew of and disregarded an excessive risk
to his health or safety); Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073-76
(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (requirements for establishing municipal liability claim);
Jones v. Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of a § 1983
free exercise claim); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005)
(elements of retaliation claim in prison context); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,
1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (elements of deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant
2 18-17198
VanDerMeulen leave to amend, or in denying his motion for an extension of time,
because amendment would have been futile. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am.,
232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and
explaining that “[a] district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend
when amendment would be futile . . . .”); see also Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292
F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (a district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend
is particularly broad when it has already granted leave to amend); Med. Lab. Mgmt.
Consultants v. Am. Broad. Cos., 306 F.3d 806, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (“District court
judges . . . have ample discretion to control their dockets.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
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).
AFFIRMED.
3 18-17198