NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ISMAEL VILLARREAL, No. 21-56194

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:20-cv-01942-VBF-AFM

v.

MEMORANDUM*

RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; JEFF MACOMBER, Warden; KENNETH J. POGUE, CDCR Director; ANTHONY CARTER; STEVEN ESCOBAR; P. BIRDSONG, Appeals Coordinator; CHELSEA ARMENTA, Office Service Supervisor; S MOORE, Associate Warden; R. W. SMITH, Chief Deputy Warden; W. SINKOVICH, Appeals Examiner,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2023**

* 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). Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Ismael Villarreal appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with

the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and for failure to

state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under

28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012)

(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Villarreal’s action because Villarreal

failed to allege the bases for his claims and 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, a plaintiff must present factual

allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

Villarreal’s miscellaneous motion (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied as

unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-56194