Case Name: Buck Daniel MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JORDET; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-23
Citations: 517 F. App'x 551
Docket Number: No. 12-35270
Parties: Buck Daniel MOORE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JORDET; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 517
Pages: 551–551

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.