Eiland v. Sigmon

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 19, 2026
• Docket: 24-3539
• Status: Unpublished

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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. 24-3539 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00926-MTL-- Plaintiff - Appellant, ESW v. MEMORANDUM* DWAYNE SIGMON,

Defendant - Appellee.

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.

§ 1983 action alleging substantive due process violations arising from his refusal to

report to the medical department. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

* 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). 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 a substantive due process 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); Corales

v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 568 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Substantive due process forbids the

government from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property in such a way that

shocks the conscience or interferes with the rights implicit in the concept of

ordered liberty.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-3539