Alex Lomota Marti v. B. Warren

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEX LOMOTA MARTI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
B. WARREN,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-16428
D.C. No. 4:14-cv-02305-YGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Alex Lomota Marti appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant
retaliated against him for filing grievances in violation of the First Amendment.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal
FILED
MAR 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011).
We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of
Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Marti’s complaint because Marti failed
to allege sufficient facts to show that defendant’s warning did not reasonably
advance a legitimate penological goal. 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 still 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 retaliation
claim in the prison context).
Denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion because amendment
would have been futile. See McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1099
(9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-16428

-- 2 of 2 --