Case ID: f-appx_325/html/0620-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard J. HARDENBROOK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EMPLOYEES OF the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF the INTERIOR; et al., Defendants-Appel-lees.
    No. 08-15149.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 12, 2009.
    
    Filed May 26, 2009.
    Richard J. Hardenbrook, Carson City, NV, pro se.
    
      Gregory William Addington, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, Nhu Q. Nguyen, Esquire, Senior Deputy Attorney General, George Taylor, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Colleen E. Hemingway, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard J. Hardenbrook appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hardenbrook’s third amended complaint because it failed to state a cognizable legal theory upon which relief can be granted. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1988) (“Dismissal can be based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory[.]”).

Hardenbrook’s remaining contentions are without merit.

All pending motions are denied.

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