IKEMEFULA IBEABUCHI V. BANICKI, No. 18-16309 (9th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 31 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IKEMEFULA CHARLES IBEABUCHI, AKA Charles Ikemefula Ibeabuchi, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-16309 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04577-JAT-JZB Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. BANICKI, Officer/ Sheriff’s Deputy B3339 (Unit 4E) at 4th Avenue Jail; VAIL, Jail Commander/ Supervisor A8985 at 4th Avenue Jail, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 22, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Ikemefula Charles Ibeabuchi, AKA Charles Ikemefula Ibeabuchi, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing * 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). his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Ibeabuchi’s action because Ibeabuchi failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim 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 Lopez v. Dep’t of Health Servs., 939 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth elements of a § 1983 claim). We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). AFFIRMED. 2 18-16309

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.