NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES EDWARD ALLEN, Nos. 20-55788
20-55789
Plaintiff-Appellant,
D.C. Nos. 3:20-cv-00788-JAH-RBM
v. 3:19-cv-01610-JAH-RBB
J. CARDENAS, Correctional Officer; et al.,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Charles Edward Allen appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations
of the First and Eighth Amendments arising from alleged retaliation by a
correctional officer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
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).
novo. Byrd v. Maricopa County Bd. of Supervisors, 845 F.3d 919, 922 (9th Cir.
2017) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,
1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Allen’s First Amendment claim
because Allen 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 to be
liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.
2005) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim).
On appeal, Allen fails to address the district court’s dismissal of his Eighth
Amendment claims and has therefore waived his challenge to the district court’s
order regarding those claims. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d
925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually
argued in appellant’s opening brief.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-55788
20-55789