*1 Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Nicholas Patrick, a California state prisoner, 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)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington , 152 F.3d *2 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Patrick’s action because Patrick 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); Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 833-34 (1994) (setting forth elements of a failure-to-protect claim); Wilhelm v. Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth elements of a medical deliberate indifference claim); Rhodes v. Robinson , 408 F.3d 559, 567- 68 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context); Serrano v. Francis , 345 F.3d 1071, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth elements of an equal protection claim); Witherow v. Paff , 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (describing prisoners’ First Amendment right to send and receive mail).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-16428
[*] 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).