United States v. 2020-06-05 | 19-55639 | ADONAI EL-SHADDAI V. L. ZAMORA | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADONAI EL-SHADDAI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

L. D. ZAMORA, Chief CCHCS in
individual and official capacity; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-55639

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02327-RGK-JC

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

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

California state prisoner Adonai El-Shaddai appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state
law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to

*
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 5 2020

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

2 19-55639
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112
(9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed El-Shaddai’s action because El-
Shaddai failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible federal claim. 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 Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per
curiam) (elements of an equal protection “class of one” claim); Jones v. Williams,
791 F.3d 1023, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[a] person asserting a free exercise claim
must show that the government action in question substantially burdens the
person’s practice of [his] religion”; in the prison context, “[t]he challenged conduct
is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th
Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health; a difference of opinion
concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).
We reject as unsupported by the record El-Shaddai’s contention that the
district court abused its discretion by denying his application for costs related to his
prior appeal.

3 19-55639
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
El-Shaddai’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.