Rodney Banks v. J. PELAYO, Correctional Officer at Kern Valley State Prison

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODNEY BANKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. PELAYO, Correctional Officer at Kern
Valley State Prison; A. LEYVA,
Correctional Officer at Kern Valley State
Prison,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15688
D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00117-DAD-JLT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Rodney Banks appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the
First and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
* 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
MAR 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15688
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure
to state a claim. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Banks’s action because Banks failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a 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); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d
559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in
the prison context); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance
procedure.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --