MICHAEL WILLIAMS V. VICKIE MADRID, No. 14-15907 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 1 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-15907 D.C. No. 1:13-cv-02104-MJS MEMORANDUM* VICKIE MADRID, MSW, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted June 22, 2015*** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Michael B. Williams, a pre-trial civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predators (“SVP”) Act, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** Williams consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to state any cognizable claims. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 368-70 (1986) (sexually-dangerous-person commitment proceedings are not “criminal” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against compulsory self-incrimination); Inouye v. Kemna, 504 F.3d 705, 712 n.7 (9th Cir. 2007) (test for Establishment Clause violation); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of retaliation claim). AFFIRMED. 2 14-15907

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.