CHAMBERS v. LASKE (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

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 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.