CARL STEVENSON V. CDCR, No. 23-55090 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARL DWAYNE STEVENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Chief Office of Appeals, FILED OCT 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-55090 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01791-MWF-AFM MEMORANDUM * Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 10, 2023** Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Carl Dwayne Stevenson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. 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). ** Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Stevenson’s action because Stevenson’s official capacity claims were barred by sovereign immunity, and Stevenson otherwise failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 752 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the California Department of Corrections is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that an inmate could not bring a due process challenge to the processing of his grievances because “inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure”). We reject as unsupported by the record Stevenson’s allegations of judicial bias. Stevenson’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 23-55090

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.