NORMAN BLANCO V. I. PETE, No. 19-55609 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 17 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NORMAN PAUL BLANCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-55609 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-04795-JVS-KS MEMORANDUM* I. PETE, Individual; DEBBIE ASUNCION, Warden, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 14, 2020** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Norman Paul Blanco appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First Amendment claims related to his incoming legal mail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint * 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). for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Blanco’s action because Blanco failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants personally participated in or otherwise caused the opening of his incoming legal mail on four occasions in 2017 and 2018. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983 “if there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation omitted)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider documents that were not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). AFFIRMED. 2 19-55609
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.
