Carl Dwayne Stevenson v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Chief Office of Appeals

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARL DWAYNE STEVENSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
Chief Office of Appeals,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 23-55090
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01791-MWF-AFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2023 **
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Carl Dwayne Stevenson appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
* 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
OCT 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-55090
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Stevenson’s action because
Stevenson’s official capacity claims were barred by sovereign immunity, and
Stevenson otherwise failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that although pro
se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 554
F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the California Department of
Corrections is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334
F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that an inmate could not bring a due process
challenge to the processing of his grievances because “inmates lack a separate
constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Stevenson’s allegations of judicial
bias.
Stevenson’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --