Eiland v. Mendez

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RANDY CARL EILAND, No. 25-3920 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-00781-MTL--

Plaintiff - Appellant, ESW v.

MEMORANDUM*

TAD MENDEZ, Discipline Hearing Officer at Saguaro Correctional Center; A. MORROW, Discipline Hearing Officer at Saguaro Correctional Center,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Idaho state prisoner Randy Carl Eiland, who is housed in a private prison in

Arizona, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

*

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).

§ 1983 action alleging due process violations arising from two separate

disciplinary proceedings. 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 Eiland’s action because Eiland failed to

allege facts sufficient to state any 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).

We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district

court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.

2 25-3920