Loritz

MEMORANDUM **

Richard P. Loritz, II, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and affirm the court’s dismissal.

The district court properly dismissed Loritz’s claims that Paul Pfingst and Gregory Thompson conspired to commit various constitutional violations because Loritz supports the essential elements of his claim with only vague and conclusory allegations. See Ivey v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.1982).

The district court also properly dismissed Loritz’s claims against defendant K. Plummer for failure to state a claim. First, Loritz failed to allege that his efforts to prove his innocence and misconduct by the district attorney played a “substantial” or “motivating” factor in Plummer’s alleged threats to plant drugs on him as required to sustain a First Amendment claim. See Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310 , 1314 (9th Cir.1989). Second, Loritz’s Fourth and Eight Amendment claims fail because strip searches serve a legitimate…