Case Name: LaTonya R. FINLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas REARDON, Judge; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-28
Citations: 667 F. App'x 622
Docket Number: No. 14-16474
Parties: LaTonya R. FINLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas REARDON, Judge; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 622–623

Head Matter:
LaTonya R. FINLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas REARDON, Judge; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-16474
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 28, 2016
Latonya R. Finley, Pro Se
Kimberly M. Drake, Litigation Counsel, Jarvis Fay Doporto & Gibson, LLP, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellee Thomas Reardon, Thomas Rogers, Paul Deluc-chi, Carrie M. Panetta, Gregory Syrens
Alan M. Cohen, Office of the City Attorney for the City of Alameda, Alameda, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Alameda Police Department, Craig Vreeland, Erik Klaus
Raymond L. MacKay, Esquire, Office of the County Counsel County of Alameda, Oakland, CA, for Colleen McMahon, District Attorney, Defendantr-Appellee Colleen Mcmahon
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
LaTonya R. Finley appeals, pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging violations of constitutional and statutory rights arising from her arrest and criminal prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, Balistreri v. Pacific a Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990), and for abuse of discretion a denial of leave to amend, Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893, 898 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Finley's action because Finley failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible 'on its face" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Finley's complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile, as Finley's claims are belied by documents of which the district court correctly took judicial notice. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that a "district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile"); see also Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) ("[T]he court need not . accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit.").
Finley's request for judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.