Robert Lee Jenkins v. TED BLOOM; S. CAMPAIGNE; K. THOMPSON; D. CHAMBERLAIN, Corrections Captain; K. HOFFMAN

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT LEE JENKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TED BLOOM; S. CAMPAIGNE; K.
THOMPSON; D. CHAMBERLAIN,
Corrections Captain; K. HOFFMAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-17416
D.C. No. 3:19-cv-05762-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Robert Lee Jenkins appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment
violations. 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).
FILED
JUN 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-17416
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 Jenkins’s action because Jenkins 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); Rhodes v. Robinson,
408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation
claim in the prison context); see also Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of L.A., 759
F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2014) (although the court accepts as true factual
allegations in a complaint, it need not accept as true allegations that contradict
matters incorporated by reference).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --