Case Name: Terry HARDAGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walt GULLETT; Kristi Anderson; Jennifer Doerner; Mary Matthews; The Citizens Review Board; Dan Moseley; Ryan Loosli, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-21
Citations: 585 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: No. 12-35149
Parties: Terry HARDAGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walt GULLETT; Kristi Anderson; Jennifer Doerner; Mary Matthews; The Citizens Review Board; Dan Moseley; Ryan Loosli, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 659–659

Head Matter:
Terry HARDAGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Walt GULLETT; Kristi Anderson; Jennifer Doerner; Mary Matthews; The Citizens Review Board; Dan Moseley; Ryan Loosli, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-35149.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 14, 2014.
Filed Nov. 21, 2014.
Terry Hardage, Myrtle Creek, OR, pro se.
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, 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
Terry Hardage appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, and 1986. • We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998). We may affirm on any ground supported by' the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.
On appeal, Hardage maintains that, contrary to the district court's ruling, he is not challenging the results of the state dependency hearing, and he argues that the dependency hearing has no bearing on his § 1983 claim. Instead, he contends, the issue is whether the initial removal of his children into protective custody was illegal, and he argues that the juvenile court did not consider this issue in the dependency hearing. However, Hardage's complaint fails to state such a claim, or to allege any connection between the defendants and the initial removal of Hardage's children. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-80, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1540-41 (9th Cir.1989) (en banc); Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep't., 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir.1988).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history underlying this appeal, we do not recount them here.