Joshua Bland v. State of California

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND, No. 22-15559

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02100-JAM-DMC v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; XAVIER MEMORANDUM* BECERRA, Attorney General; KRISTEN K.

CHENELIA, Deputy Attorney General; TAMI M. KREZIN, Deputy Attorney General; PAUL E. O’CONNOR, Deputy Attorney General; SARAH M. BRATTIN, Deputy Attorney General; LUCAS L.

HENNES, Deputy Attorney General; JOANNA B. HOOD, Deputy Attorney General; MATTHEW R. WILSON, Deputy Attorney General,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

California state prisoner Joshua Davis Bland appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of the Contract Clause. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 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 Bland’s action because Bland 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, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also RUI One Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 371 F.3d 1137, 1147 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating framework to review a claim under the Contract Clause).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-15559