Gallegos v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2026
• Docket: 24-6125
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BENJAMIN ROBERT GALLEGOS, No. 24-6125 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01790-DAD-EFB Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Prison Law Office; COLEMAN, Office of Inspector General; XAVIER BECERRA, State of California, Department of Justice; ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD, LLP; CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES; EBERT, Correctional Counselor; CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

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

California state prisoner Benjamin Robert Gallegos appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

interference with his right to marry. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gallegos’s claims against defendant

Ebert because Gallegos failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Ebert violated

Gallegos’s constitutional right to marriage. 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); see also Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94-99 (1987) (analyzing

constitutionality of restrictions on marriage in the prison context).

We reject as unsupported by the record Gallegos’s contentions that the

district court denied Gallegos due process or access to the courts.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

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

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6125