Court Opinion

ID: 4353052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-12-20 21:00:41.976628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:14:43.970834
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 20 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HEATHER STRINGHAM,                              No.    18-35260

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01641-SB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
GEORGE W. BUSH,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Oregon
                   Michael W. Mosman, Chief Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 17, 2018**

Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

      Heather Stringham appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680

F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record.

Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008).

We affirm.

       Dismissal of Stringham’s action was proper because Stringham failed to

allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627

F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed

liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible

claim for relief).

       All pending motions are denied.

       AFFIRMED.

                                            2