KEITH DUANE ARLINE, Jr. v. Ken Clark;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEITH DUANE ARLINE, Jr.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KEN CLARK; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-15335
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00420-LJO-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Keith Duane Arline, Jr., a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
deprivation of outdoor exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630
FILED
DEC 5 2014
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 3 --

F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (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 in part, reverse in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed Arline’s action against defendants
Vasquez, Clark, and Sherman because Arline failed to allege facts sufficient to link
these defendants to any constitutional violation. See Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs.
Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981) (to bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim,
plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission
that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights); see also Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are
liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim).
However, the district court prematurely dismissed Arline’s action against
defendants Goss, Wan, and Allison because Arline’s allegations as to these
defendants, liberally construed, were “sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants]
to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012); see
also Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth
elements of an Eighth Amendment claim based on deprivation of outdoor
exercise).
Accordingly, we reverse in part and remand with instructions for the district
14-15335 2

-- 2 of 3 --

court to order the United States Marshal to serve the second amended complaint on
defendants Goss, Wan, and Allison.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
14-15335 3

-- 3 of 3 --