MEMORANDUM ***

LaKeith L. McCoy, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a retaliation claim. 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)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

*602 The district court properly dismissed McCoy’s action because McCoy failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Caccio-la’s conduct was arbitrary, capricious, or did not advance a legitimate correctional goal. See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114-15 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth the elements of a § 1983 retaliation claim in the prison context); Pratt v. Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 806 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The plaintiff bears the burden of pleading and proving the absence of - legitimate correctional goals for the conduct of which he complains.”); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

AFFIRMED.