United States v. 2020-08-10 | 19-16765 | AARON APODACA V. S. SPEIDELL | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AARON L. APODACA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

S. SPEIDELL, B Complex Captain in
Charge of Staff; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16765

D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00083-DAD-JDP

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Aaron L. Apodaca appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment violations. 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

*
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 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16765
F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Apodaca’s action because Apodaca
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are
liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible
claim); see also Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987) (a prison regulation
impinging on First Amendment rights is valid if it is reasonably related to
legitimate penological interests); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-68 (1974)
(due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings); Walker v. Beard,
789 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of a free exercise claim); Watison v.
Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 2012) (requirements for cruel and
unusual punishment claim); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.
2005) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context).
We reject as unsupported by the record Apodaca’s contentions that
defendants punished him because of his disability and that the district court held
him to a higher standard as a pro se plaintiff.
We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.