Billy Malone v. Clyde Yee

MEMORANDUM

Billy Malone appeals the dismissal of his Bivens conspiracy action, denial of his motion to amend and denial of his motion to reconsider. We affirm.

1. The district court properly dismissed the claim against defendants Cyd Martin, Buccello and Smith because Malone failed to plead a plausible claim against them. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Malone has alleged against Buccello and Smith only that they were possibly involved in a conspiracy to cover-up the earlier conspiracy. Such a claim requires Malone to demonstrate a causal connection between the cover-up and his failure to succeed in his conspiracy claim. See Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621 , 625 (9th Cir.1988). Malone has failed to make any such allegations in this complaint, even contingently. The pleadings do not support that Cyd Martin was involved in any type of agreement to violate Malone’s rights as required for a Bivens conspiracy claim. See Ting v. United States, 927 F.2d 1504, 1512 (9th Cir.1991).

2. The court properly dismissed Malone’s Bivens claim against Snyder, Yee, Davis and Steve Martin because Malone may recover only…