Ronald Brownell Martin v. Washington State Department of Corrections - Education

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD BROWNELL MARTIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS – EDUCATION;
LONNIE ROBERTS, Correctional Program
Manager,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-35768
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00741-RAJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Ronald Brownell Martin appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his
exclusion from community college classes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* 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
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35768
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Martin’s action because Martin failed
to allege facts sufficient to show that he was deprived of a right secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States. See Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S.
Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements of § 1983 action); Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (though pro se pleadings are to be
liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to
state a plausible claim for relief).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --