Dale E. Phillips v. South Coast Plaza;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DALE E. PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SOUTH COAST PLAZA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-56070
D.C. No. 8:18-cv-00812-AG-JDE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Dale E. Phillips appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of a trespass warning he received from South
Coast Plaza mall. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim under
* 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
NOV 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-56070
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895
(9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Phillips’s § 1983 action because
Phillips failed to allege facts sufficient to show the violation of a constitutional
right, or the presence of state action. See Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th
Cir. 2015) (“Dismissal of a § 1983 claim following a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is
proper if the complaint is devoid of factual allegations that give rise to a plausible
inference of either element.”); id. at 1035-36 (setting forth elements of § 1983
claim); Brewster v. Board of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971,
981 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth elements of procedural due process claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying 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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --