Joshua Bland v. State of California

Ninth Circuit

Joshua Bland v. State of California

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 21, 2023

Docket22-15559

StatusUnpublished

This text of Joshua Bland v. State of California (Joshua Bland v. State of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joshua Bland v. State of California, (9th Cir. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSHUA DAVIS BLAND, No. 22-15559

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02100-JAM-DMC

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; XAVIER MEMORANDUM* BECERRA, Attorney General; KRISTEN K. CHENELIA, Deputy Attorney General; TAMI M. KREZIN, Deputy Attorney General; PAUL E. O’CONNOR, Deputy Attorney General; SARAH M. BRATTIN, Deputy Attorney General; LUCAS L. HENNES, Deputy Attorney General; JOANNA B. HOOD, Deputy Attorney General; MATTHEW R. WILSON, Deputy Attorney General,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

* 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). California state prisoner Joshua Davis Bland appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of the

Contract Clause. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes,

213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bland’s action because Bland failed to

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,

341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff

must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see

also RUI One Corp. v. City of Berkeley, 371 F.3d 1137, 1147 (9th Cir. 2004)

(stating framework to review a claim under the Contract Clause).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-15559

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI