United States v. 2020-06-09 | 19-16797 | DANNY FABRICANT V. G. BISSETTE | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANNY FABRICANT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

G. J. BISSETTE, Associate Warden at USP-
Tucson; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16797

D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00030-JGZ-
PSOT

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Danny Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging
constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

*
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).
FILED

JUN 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-16797
review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v.
Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We may affirm on any basis supported
by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We
affirm.
Dismissal of Fabricant’s action was proper because, even if a Bivens remedy
is available for his constitutional claims, Fabricant failed to allege facts sufficient
to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.
2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must allege
facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d
1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth elements of a § 1983 claim); Van Strum v.
Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Actions under § 1983 and those under
Bivens are identical save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a
federal actor under Bivens.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the first amended
complaint without further leave to amend because amendment would have been
futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th
Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without
leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
Fabricant’s motion for an order related to mail (Docket Entry No. 6) is

3 19-16797
denied.
AFFIRMED.