ALEX MARTI V. B. WARREN, No. 14-16428 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 02 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEX LOMOTA MARTI, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 14-16428 D.C. No. 4:14-cv-02305-YGR v. MEMORANDUM* B. WARREN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 17, 2015** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Alex Lomota Marti appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant retaliated against him for filing grievances in violation of the First Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal * 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Marti’s complaint because Marti failed to allege sufficient facts to show that defendant’s warning did not reasonably advance a legitimate penological goal. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of retaliation claim in the prison context). Denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion because amendment would have been futile. See McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2004). AFFIRMED. 2 14-16428

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.