William Rouser v. D. Crounse;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM ROUSER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
D. CROUNSE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15037
D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00550-DAD-GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
William Rouser appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with
prison disciplinary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
* 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).
FILED
APR 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-15037
§ 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rouser’s action because Rouser 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); see also Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995) (a prisoner has no protected liberty interest
when the sanction imposed neither extends the length of his sentence nor imposes
an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life”); Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013)
(“To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the defendants
acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon
membership in a protected class.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted));
Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A person deprives another of
a constitutional right . . . [under § 1983 ], if he does an affirmative act, participates
in another’s affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally
required to do that causes the deprivation of which [the plaintiff complains].”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-15037
Rouser’s motions for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry Nos. 4 and 5)
are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --