Robert Stewart, Jr. v. Maricopa County Jail

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Robert Stewart, Jr. v. Maricopa County Jail

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT LEE STEWART, Jr., No. 21-15061

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00979-SPL-ESW v.

MEMORANDUM* MARICOPA COUNTY JAIL; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 12, 2021** Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Robert Lee Stewart, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging inadequate medical care and conditions-of-confinement claims arising from his pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

*

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). novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stewart’s action because Stewart failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth objective deliberate indifference standard for Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care and conditions-of-confinement claims brought by pretrial detainees); Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)); 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).

Stewart’s motion for a response from the court (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-15061

Reference

Status
Unpublished