Schelton Jones v. People of California

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SCHELTON JONES, No. 23-55746

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-02769-FLA-JC

v. MEMORANDUM* PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2024**

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Schelton Jones appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his federal action seeking to restore his right to possess a firearm. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Big Sandy Rancheria

Enters. v. Bonta, 1 F.4th 710, 719 (9th Cir. 2021). We may affirm on any basis

* 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). supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.

2008). We affirm.

Dismissal was proper because Jones failed to allege facts sufficient to state

any plausible claim against defendant People of California. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that, to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Jones’s motions to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 8), reinstate his

firearm rights (Docket Entry No. 9), and expedite the case (Docket Entry No. 12)

are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-55746