ANTWOINE BEALER V. KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, No. 18-16182 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 26 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTWOINE MARQUISE BEALER, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-16182 D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00367-LJO-SKO v. MEMORANDUM* KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Antwoine Marquise Bealer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from his transfer to a segregated housing unit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 * 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). U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Bealer’s action because Bealer failed to allege facts sufficient to state plausible claims for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per curiam) (elements of “class of one” equal protection claim); Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 98-99 (1997) (Double Jeopardy Clause applies only to the imposition of multiple criminal punishments for the same offense); Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-85 (1995) (a constitutionally protected liberty interest arises only when a restraint imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings); Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 731, 734 (9th Cir. 2000) (elements of Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal, see Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009), and we do not 2 18-16182 consider documents not presented to the district court, see United States v. Elias, 921 F.3d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). AFFIRMED. 3 18-16182
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.
