Case Name: Charles Anthony BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles Edwards BROOKS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-30
Citations: 692 F. App'x 888
Docket Number: No. 16-17257
Parties: Charles Anthony BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles Edwards BROOKS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 888–888

Head Matter:
Charles Anthony BROOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles Edwards BROOKS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-17257
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2017
Filed June 30, 2017
Charles Anthony Brooks, Pro Se
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, 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
Charles Anthony Brooks appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking the return of lottery tickets and payment of alleged winnings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed appellant's action because appellant failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was "(1) deprived] of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2011).
Because we affirm on the basis of failure to state a claim, we do not consider appellant's contentions regarding the district court's alternate basis for dismissal.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.