NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARCOS VACA, No. 19-16164

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02242-JAT-CDB

v.

MEMORANDUM*

TRINITY, Trinity Food Service at La Paz County Sheriff Department; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as Does 1- 30,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, 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). Arizona state prisoner Marcos Vaca appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his right to

adequate food under the Fourteenth Amendment while he was a pretrial detainee.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Vaca’s action because Vaca 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 Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1123-25 (9th Cir. 2018) (a

pretrial detainee’s claims arising out of the conditions of his confinement are

analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment); Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d

1128, 1138-39 (9th Cir. 2012) (to state a § 1983 claim against a private entity, a

plaintiff must allege that the private entity acted under color of state law and his

constitutional rights were violated as a result of a policy or custom of the private

entity); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir. 2011) (a supervisor is liable

under § 1983 “if there exists either (1) his or her personal involvement in the

constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the

supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation omitted)).

2 19-16164 Vaca’s request for copies of medical records and grievances from the La Paz

County grievances process, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 19-16164