Roscoe Chambers v. Tim Laske;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSCOE CHAMBERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TIM LASKE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-55946
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03470-MWF-KES
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-55946
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 of 2 --