MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Arthur Torlucci appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims related to the conditions of his confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Torlucci’s action because Torlucci failed to allege sufficient facts in his amended complaint to show that any defendant violated his constitutional rights. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 1996) (a complaint must make clear “who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Torlucci’s postjudgment motions for relief because Torlucci failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, including Torlucci’s contention that defendants retaliated against him. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.