Gallegos v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BENJAMIN ROBERT GALLEGOS, No. 24-6125 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01790-DAD-EFB Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Prison Law Office; COLEMAN, Office of Inspector General; XAVIER BECERRA, State of California, Department of Justice; ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD, LLP; CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES; EBERT, Correctional Counselor; CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2026** * 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).

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Benjamin Robert Gallegos appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging interference with his right to marry. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gallegos’s claims against defendant Ebert because Gallegos failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Ebert violated Gallegos’s constitutional right to marriage. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341- (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that, although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94-99 (1987) (analyzing constitutionality of restrictions on marriage in the prison context).

We reject as unsupported by the record Gallegos’s contentions that the district court denied Gallegos due process or access to the courts.

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

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6125