NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT LEE JENKINS, No. 19-17416

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-05762-WHA

v. MEMORANDUM* TED BLOOM; S. CAMPAIGNE; K. THOMPSON; D. CHAMBERLAIN, Corrections Captain; K. HOFFMAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Robert Lee Jenkins appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment

violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

* 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). 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 Jenkins’s action because Jenkins failed

to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, 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 First Amendment retaliation

claim in the prison context); see also Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of L.A., 759 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2014) (although the court accepts as true factual

allegations in a complaint, it need not accept as true allegations that contradict

matters incorporated by reference).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-17416