Michael Williams v. Bruce Coleman

Ninth Circuit

Michael Williams v. Bruce Coleman

536 F. App'x 694

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 2, 2013

Docket13-15082

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 536 F. App'x 694 (Michael Williams v. Bruce Coleman) 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

Michael Williams v. Bruce Coleman, 536 F. App'x 694 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee confined at Coalinga State Hospital pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that defendants violated the Thirteenth Amendment and the Fair Labor Standards Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because the allegations in his amended complaint did not “contain[ ] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also U.S. Const, amend. XIII, § 1 (prohibiting involuntarily servitude); Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1324-25 (9th Cir.1991) (discussing economic reality test to consider for determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists).

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) (per curiam).

Williams’s motion filed on March 6, 2013 is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee confined at Coalinga State Hospital pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that defendants violated the Thirteenth Amendment and the Fair Labor Standards Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because the allegations in his amended complaint did not “contain[ ] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also U.S. Const, amend. XIII, § 1 (prohibiting involuntarily servitude); Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological, Inc., 931 F.2d 1320, 1324-25 (9th Cir.1991) (discussing economic reality test to consider for determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists).

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) (per curiam).

Williams’s motion filed on March 6, 2013 is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

536 F. App'x 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-williams-v-bruce-coleman-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack