Skip to main content

SHUNN v. BENSON (2021)

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Forrest Glenn SHUNN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gordon BENSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-35648

Decided: June 30, 2021

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Forrest Glenn Shunn, Pro Se


Idaho state prisoner Forrest Glenn Shunn appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation, deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Shunn's action because Shunn failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-85, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (a prisoner has no protected liberty interest when the sanction imposed neither extends the length of his sentence nor imposes an “atypical and significant hardship”); 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); Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high legal standard requiring a defendant be aware of and disregard an excessive risk to an inmate's health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

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

All pending motions are denied.


Copied to clipboard