LaKEITH L. McCOY v. S. CACCIOLA, Correctional Officer at California Correctional Institution;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LaKEITH L. McCOY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
S. CACCIOLA, Correctional Officer at
California Correctional Institution; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 15-15022
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00995-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 15, 2016***
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
LaKeith L. McCoy, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a
FILED
MAR 24 2016
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.
** McCoy consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (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.
The district court properly dismissed McCoy’s action because McCoy failed
to allege facts sufficient to show that Cacciola’s conduct was arbitrary, capricious,
or did not advance a legitimate correctional goal. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d
1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth the elements of a § 1983 retaliation
claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“The plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving the absence of legitimate
correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains.”); see also Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be
construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief).
AFFIRMED.
15-15022 2

-- 2 of 2 --