Robert R. Snyder v. California Department of Corrections

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT R. SNYDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION;
D. ASUNCION, Warden at California State
Prison, Los Angeles County, individual;
JOSIE GASTELO, Warden, Warden,
individual; D. SCHEIFFELE; P. WARD,
Sergeant, individual; B. FLOERCKY, Acting
Sgt., individual; B. PHILLIPS, Associate
Warden/Sergeant, individual; ACUNA, Duty
Sgt., individual; A. ESQUERRA, C.O.,
individual,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-55087
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01223-PSG-RAO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
* 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
JAN 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-55087
California state prisoner Robert R. Snyder appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and
deliberate indifference to his health. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Snyder’s action because Snyder failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible violation of his constitutional rights.
See Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1114 (9th Cir. 2012) (to establish
retaliation, plaintiffs must allege “a causal connection exists between the protected
conduct and the adverse action”); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056-60 (9th
Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of
and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Snyder’s
complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.
See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.
2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave
to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --