Ismael Villarreal v. RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for the California Department of Corrections

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISMAEL VILLARREAL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for the
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; JEFF MACOMBER,
Warden; KENNETH J. POGUE, CDCR
Director; ANTHONY CARTER; STEVEN
ESCOBAR; P. BIRDSONG, Appeals
Coordinator; CHELSEA ARMENTA, Office
Service Supervisor; S MOORE, Associate
Warden; R. W. SMITH, Chief Deputy
Warden; W. SINKOVICH, Appeals
Examiner,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-56194
D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01942-VBF-AFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
* 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
FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-56194
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ismael Villarreal appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with
the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and for failure to
state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under
28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Villarreal’s action because Villarreal
failed to allege the bases for his claims and 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).
Villarreal’s miscellaneous motion (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied as
unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --