Case ID: f-appx_517/html/0551-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Buck Daniel MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JORDET; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-35270.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2013.
    
    Filed April 23, 2013.
    Buck Daniel Moore, Pendleton, OR, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oregon state prisoner Buck Daniel Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations concerning his conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Moore’s action because the amended complaint did not “contain[ ] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-12 (9th Cir.2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (noting obligation to construe pro se pleadings liberally)-

Moore’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.