NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, No. 18-15437 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00732-LJO-SAB v. MEMORANDUM* SANJEEV BATRA, Doctor at Coalinga State Hospital; KEN UNDERWOOD, Medical Psych Tech, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under

* 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Huftile v. Miccio–Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible 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); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation claim under § 1983); Mitchell v. Dupnik, 75 F.3d 517, 523-24 (9th Cir. 1996) (elements for a procedural due process claim in the pre-trial detainee context).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Williams’s request that his pending appeals, Case Nos. 18-15437 and 18- 15621, be assigned to the same merits panel (Docket Entry No. 4) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-15437