Yablonsky v. Alford

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2026
• Docket: 24-4915
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS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

JOHN HENRY YABLONSKY, No. 24-4915 D.C. No. 3:23-cv-02235-RSH-JLB Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* ALFORD, Teacher; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; J. ROBLES, Teacher; BLAHNIK, Librarian; MARTINEZ; TICSCARNIA; McGUIRE; MONDET, Principal; STEADMAN, Associate Warden; S. ROBERTS, M.D.; HILL, Warden; BATES, VOC Supervisor; ANDERSON, Associate Warden; DOES 1-50; ARMENTA; PENELL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Robert Steven Huie, 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 John Henry Yablonsky appeals pro se from the

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

constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir.

2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Yablonsky’s First Amendment

retaliation claims because Yablonsky failed to allege facts sufficient to state a

plausible claim. 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

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Watison, 668 F.3d at

1114-15 (setting forth elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the

prison context, including that the plaintiff must allege a causal connection between

the adverse action and the protected conduct).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-4915