MICHAEL WILLIAMS V. ARCELIA CASTANEDA, No. 16-17263 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-17263 D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00908-MJS v. MEMORANDUM* ARCELIA CASTANEDA, Psychiatric Technician, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted March 8, 2017*** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Michael B. Williams, a pre-trial civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii), Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. 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); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of retaliation claim in prison context); Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1993) (elements of procedural due process claim). We reject as without merit Williams’s contentions that he was held to a higher pleading standard. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 16-17263

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.