Roscoe Chambers v. Tim Laske

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 22, 2019
• Docket: 18-55946
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSCOE CHAMBERS, No. 18-55946

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03470-MWF-KES

v. MEMORANDUM* TIM LASKE; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 19, 2019**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Roscoe Chambers, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his action alleging due process claims under the Federal Tort

Claims Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

dismissal under 42 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d

* 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). 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Chambers’s action because Chambers

failed to allege facts sufficient to state any cognizable claim for relief. See Hebbe

v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be

liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to

state a plausible claim for relief); Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898,

904 (9th Cir. 1993) (elements of procedural due process claim).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-55946