James Elliott Romeo v. TERRY L. STEWART, Former Director of Arizona Dept. of Corrections / ADOC Central…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES ELLIOTT ROMEO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TERRY L. STEWART, Former Director of
Arizona Dept. of Corrections / ADOC
Central Office, Phoenix; CHARLES L.
RYAN, Former Director of A.D.O.C.R.R. at
Central Office, Phoenix; DAVID SHINN,
Current A.D.O.C.R.R. Director at Central
Office, Phoenix,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15340
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00236-DLR-DMF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner James Elliott Romeo appeals pro se from the district
* 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
JAN 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15340
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an access-to-
courts claim. 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 Romeo’s action because Romeo failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S.
343, 349-54 (1996) (setting forth the elements of an access-to-courts claim and
explaining that the right to access the courts does not include the right “to litigate
effectively once in court” (emphasis omitted)); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d
338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a
plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --