STEVE GARRISON V. EDMUND BROWN, JR., No. 13-15189 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 27 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS STEVE Y. GARRISON, No. 13-15189 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:11-cv-01901-EJD v. MEMORANDUM* EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr.; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 21, 2014** Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Steve Y. Garrison appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations in connection with his incarceration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court s dismissal under 28 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. § 1915A. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Garrison s action because Garrison failed to allege sufficient facts in his Second Amended Complaint showing that defendants violated his constitutional rights. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, a plaintiff must allege facts that allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged ); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 1996) (a complaint must make clear who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory, with enough detail to guide discovery ). Garrison s contentions concerning any alleged misconduct by the district court are without merit. We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, including those concerning forced medication, alleged misconduct by San Jose police officers, and recent denials of mental health services and legal supplies. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 13-15189
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
