Case ID: f-appx_599/html/0760-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Glenn WINNINGHAM, house of fearn, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. County of NAVAJO, named as: County of Navajo, Inc.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-16448.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2015.
    
    Filed April 15, 2015.
    Glenn Winningham, Ft. Worth, TX, pro se.
    Jason S. Moore, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Navajo County Attorney’s Office, Holbrook, AZ, Jennifer B. Anderson, Eileen Dennis Gilbride, Esquire, Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Daniel Patrick Schaack, Esquire, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Glenn Winningham appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal claims in connection with the imposition of property taxes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Winningham’s action because Winningham failed to state a cognizable claim. See id. at 341-42 (though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2008) (“A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject Winningham’s contention that the district court pre-judged his case.

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