Paul Nivard Beaton v. U.S. IMMIGRATION, Sacramento Field Office

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL NIVARD BEATON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION, Sacramento Field
Office; IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, Sacramento Field Office,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16370
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02039-TLN-CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Paul Nivard Beaton appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims. 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).
FILED
SEP 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16370
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 Beaton’s action because Beaton 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
Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (requirements for denial of
access to courts claim); Krainski v. Nev. ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of
Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (a claim for procedural due
process requires a “deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property
interest”).
Beaton’s motion to include exhibits with his opening brief (Docket Entry
No. 16) is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --