GADDY v. DUCART (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Michael John Gaddy appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment and due process claims relating to the calculation of his parole eligibility date. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gaddy’s action because Gaddy failed to allege facts sufficient to show that his parole eligibility date was miscalculated. 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 Cal. Penal Code § 1170.1(c) (discussing aggregation of consecutive sentences for in-prison offenses).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Gaddy’s pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 9 and 11) are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.