PAUL BEATON V. U.S. IMMIGRATION, No. 20-16370 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 22 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PAUL NIVARD BEATON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-16370 D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02039-TLN-CKD MEMORANDUM* U.S. IMMIGRATION, Sacramento Field Office; IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Sacramento Field Office, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Paul Nivard Beaton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the * 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). district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Beaton’s action because Beaton 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, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 415 (2002) (requirements for denial of access to courts claim); Krainski v. Nev. ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 616 F.3d 963, 970 (9th Cir. 2010) (a claim for procedural due process requires a “deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest”). Beaton’s motion to include exhibits with his opening brief (Docket Entry No. 16) is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 20-16370

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.