RICARDO JAMES JEFFERSON, Jr. v. R. AGUILAR, CEPT Instructor at ASPC Tucson Whetstone Unit

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO JAMES JEFFERSON, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
R. AGUILAR, CEPT Instructor at ASPC
Tucson Whetstone Unit; JONES, Unknown;
named as CO IV Education Department at
ASPC Tucson Whetstone Unit; PLEAS,
Unknown; named as Mrs. Pleas Supervisor
Education at ASPC Tucson Whetstone Unit;
DAVID SHINN, Director, Director
Department of Corrections at ASPC Tucson
Whetstone Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16966
D.C. No. 4:22-cv-00362-RM-PSOT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
* 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
AUG 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-16966
Arizona state prisoner Ricardo James Jefferson, Jr., appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional claims arising from his requests for educational records. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 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 Jefferson’s action because Jefferson
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants violated his due process
rights by failing to obtain his high school transcript on his behalf. See Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that although pro se
pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 531
(9th Cir. 1985) (holding that a prisoner’s due process claim based on denial of a
vocational course failed because “there is no constitutional right to rehabilitation”).
To the extent that Jefferson intended to allege claims under the Eighth
Amendment, dismissal was proper because Jefferson did not allege facts sufficient
to show that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. See Baumann v.
Ariz. Dep’t of Corr., 754 F.2d 841, 846 (9th Cir. 1985) (explaining that a
“[g]eneral limitation of jobs and educational opportunities is not considered
punishment” and thus does not violate the Eighth Amendment).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-16966
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Jefferson’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (Docket Entry
No. 7) is denied as unnecessary. Jefferson’s motion for appointment of counsel
(Docket Entry No. 8) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --