NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODNEY BANKS, No. 21-15688

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00117-DAD-JLT

v.

MEMORANDUM*

J. PELAYO, Correctional Officer at Kern

Valley State Prison; A. LEYVA, Correctional Officer at Kern Valley State Prison,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Rodney Banks appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the

First and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

* 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). We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure

to state a claim. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Banks’s action because Banks failed to

allege facts sufficient to state a claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42

(9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d

559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in

the prison context); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003)

(“[I]nmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance

procedure.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 21-15688