NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AARON L. APODACA, No. 19-16765

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00083-DAD-JDP

v.

MEMORANDUM*

S. SPEIDELL, B Complex Captain in

Charge of Staff; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Submitted August 5, 2020**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Aaron L. Apodaca appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First, Eighth, and

Fourteenth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213

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

The district court properly dismissed Apodaca’s action because Apodaca

failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v.

Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are

liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible

claim); see also Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987) (a prison regulation

impinging on First Amendment rights is valid if it is reasonably related to

legitimate penological interests); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-68 (1974)

(due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings); Walker v. Beard,

789 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir. 2015) (elements of a free exercise claim); Watison v.

Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112-13 (9th Cir. 2012) (requirements for cruel and

unusual punishment claim); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.

2005) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context).

We reject as unsupported by the record Apodaca’s contentions that

defendants punished him because of his disability and that the district court held

him to a higher standard as a pro se plaintiff.

We do not consider allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-16765