James v. Official's Bethel Jail

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 2, 2026
• Docket: 24-939
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 2 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAUL R. JAMES, Jr., No. 24-939 D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00269-SLG Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* OFFICIAL’S BETHEL JAIL; ANDREW CARL, Correction Officer; KARGAS, Superintendent; WUYA, Correction Officer; ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Joshua M. Kindred, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2025**

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Alaska state prisoner Paul R. James, Jr. appeals pro se from the district

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

* 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). claims against prison officials. 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 James’s action because James 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 present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for

relief); see also Johnson v. Ryan, 55 F.4th 1167, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2022) (setting

forth elements of a procedural due process claim); Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d

1041, 1045-46, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth elements of a sexual

harassment claim in the prison context); Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1092 (9th

Cir. 1996) (explaining that “verbal harassment generally does not violate the

Eighth Amendment”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying James’s motion for

appointment of counsel because James did not establish exceptional circumstances.

See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of

review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

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).

2 24-939 All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-939