Legal Opinion

Andre Dennison v. Charles Ryan

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided April 9, 2013No. 12-15609UnpublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Andre Dennison appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 action for failure to state a claim against several Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) officials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. 1

We review de novo a dismissal of a prisoner complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011). “Under § 1915A, when determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  2. Hudson v. PalmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Wilkinson v. AustinSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  4. Raymond Watison v. Mary CarterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  5. Herman Resnick v. Warden Hayes Lt. Ernst Officer Myers (Dho) Counselor Aune Officer WadeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. (PC) Broadnax v. State Controller's Office (CA)District Court, E.D. California · 2025
  2. (PC) Duran v. DuranDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2021
  3. (PC) Williams v. PriceDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
  4. Alfred Pittman v. Jeffrey Macomber, et al.District Court, E.D. California · 2026
  5. Craig Arnold Thomas v. Jeffrey Macomber, et al.District Court, E.D. California · 2026

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API