context: The district court properly dismissed Arline's action against defendants Vasquez, Clark, and Sherman because Arline failed to allege facts sufficient to link these defendants to any constitutional violation. See Arnold, v. Int'l Bus. Macks.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 637 F.2d 1350, 1355
citation_a.parenthetical: to bring a 42 U.S.C. SS 1983 claim, plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights
citation_a.sentence: Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.1981) (to bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 627 F.3d 338, 341-42
citation_b.parenthetical: although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim
citation_b.sentence: Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.1981) (to bring a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim).