Vasquez v. Ortega

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ISAIAS VASQUEZ, No. 24-6614 D.C. No. 5:24-cv-01386-PCP Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* JOSE ORTEGA; J. THICH; D.

VILLANUEVA; Y. DELGADO; A.

GOMEZ; M. ROMERO; DOE ROMERO, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California P. Casey Pitts, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2026** Before: CANBY, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Isaias Vasquez, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging harassment by prison employees. 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 a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Mangiaracina v. Penzone, 849 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Vasquez’s action because Vasquez 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 present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776, 798 (9th Cir. 2018) (discussing supervisory liability under § 1983); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that “verbal harassment generally does not violate the Eighth Amendment”).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6614