United States v. 2020-06-09 | 19-16512 | DAMIEN DAVIS V. CHRISTIE MYER | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAMIEN LEE DAVIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CHRISTIE MYER, Chief of Probation; TIM
WARD, District Attorney (Tulare County),

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16512

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00136-JAM-CKD

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Damien Lee Davis appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a deprivation of
personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes,

*
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

JUN 9 2020

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

2 19-16512
213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Davis’s action because Davis failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff
must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief);
Preschooler II v. Clark Cty. Sch. Bd. of Trs., 479 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007)
(a person subjects another to deprivation of a constitutional right within the
meaning of § 1983 “if he does an affirmative act, participates in another’s
affirmative act, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that
causes the deprivation of which complaint is made” (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
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 reject as unsupported by the record Davis’s contention that the district
court violated his right to due process.
AFFIRMED.