Opinion
23-55090
10-18-2023
CARL DWAYNE STEVENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Chief Office of Appeals, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California No. 2:22-cv-01791-MWF-AFM Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Carl Dwayne Stevenson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Stevenson's action because Stevenson's official capacity claims were barred by sovereign immunity, and Stevenson otherwise failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Brown v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the California Department of Corrections is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that an inmate could not bring a due process challenge to the processing of his grievances because "inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure").
We reject as unsupported by the record Stevenson's allegations of judicial bias. Stevenson's motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).