MARCOS VACA V. TRINITY, No. 19-16164 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 12 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARCOS VACA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-16164 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02242-JAT-CDB MEMORANDUM* TRINITY, Trinity Food Service at La Paz County Sheriff Department; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as Does 130, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. * 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). Arizona state prisoner Marcos Vaca appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his right to adequate food under the Fourteenth Amendment while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint 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 Vaca’s action because Vaca failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. 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 Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1123-25 (9th Cir. 2018) (a pretrial detainee’s claims arising out of the conditions of his confinement are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment); Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2012) (to state a § 1983 claim against a private entity, a plaintiff must allege that the private entity acted under color of state law and his constitutional rights were violated as a result of a policy or custom of the private entity); 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)). 2 19-16164 Vaca’s request for copies of medical records and grievances from the La Paz County grievances process, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 19-16164

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.