NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL NIVARD BEATON, No. 20-16370
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02039-TLN-CKD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
U.S. IMMIGRATION, Sacramento Field
Office; IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, Sacramento Field Office,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Paul Nivard Beaton appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
*
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).
district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d
443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Beaton’s action because Beaton 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 construed liberally, a
plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also
Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (requirements for denial of
access to courts claim); Krainski v. Nev. ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of
Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (a claim for procedural due
process requires a “deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property
interest”).
Beaton’s motion to include exhibits with his opening brief (Docket Entry
No. 16) is granted.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-16370