Miguel E. Diaz v. RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL E. DIAZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
RALPH M. DIAZ, Warden; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-16520
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00453-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Miguel E. Diaz, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal
FILED
APR 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** Diaz consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)
(dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Diaz’s action because Diaz failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994) (setting forth requirements for a deliberate indifference
claim); Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“The [Americans with Disabilities Act] prohibits discrimination because of
disability, not inadequate treatment for disability.”); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d
559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).
Because the district court dismissed Diaz’s action for failure to state a claim,
we reject Diaz’s contention that the district court abused its discretion by
dismissing his action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court
order.
AFFIRMED.
14-16520 2

-- 2 of 2 --