Case Name: Donald R. HENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-25
Citations: 668 F. App'x 727
Docket Number: No. 14-17362
Parties: Donald R. HENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 727–728

Head Matter:
Donald R. HENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-17362
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 16, 2016
Filed August 25, 2016
Donald R. Henry, San Francisco, CA, Pro Se.
Christine Van Aken, Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco, CA.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, 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
Donald R. Henry appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false arrest. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Henry's action because Henry failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was arrested without probable cause. See id. at 918 ("To maintain an action for false arrest, [plaintiff] must plead facts that would show [defendant ordered] or otherwise procured the arrests and the arrests were without probable cause").
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Henry further leave to amend. See Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend need not be granted where amendment would be futile; "[t]he district court's discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint").
AFFIRMED.
xhlS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.