
    Michael B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arcelia CASTANEDA, Psychiatric Technician, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-17263
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 21, 2017
    Michael B. Williams, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael B. Williams, a pre-trial civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii), Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, 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 retaliation claim in prison context); Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1993) (elements of procedural due process claim).

We reject as without merit Williams’s contentions that he was held to a higher pleading standard.

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

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     