NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID BEAN, No. 20-17078
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01345-DWL-DMF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ARIZONA COMMUNITY PROTECTION
AND TREATMENT CENTER,
Defendant,
and
SHANDA PAYNE, Administrative
Director; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Arizona civil detainee David Bean appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bean’s action because Bean failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible procedural due process claim. See Hebbe
v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are
construed liberally, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible
claim); Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 827-28 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The requirements
of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed
by the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty and property.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)); cf. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483 (1995) (a
prisoner has no federal or state protected liberty interest when the sanction
imposed neither extends the length of his sentence nor imposes an “atypical and
significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison
life”); see also Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 36-3709, 36-3714 (a civil detainee who petitions
the court for discharge or conditional release to a less restrictive setting is entitled
to a hearing).
2 20-17078
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 presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias,
921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-17078