Court Opinion

ID: 8678777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-25 03:51:29.86662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:27.551113
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
Janette L. Gordon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her action arising from the impounding of her car. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gordon’s action because the allegations in Gordon’s complaint failed to state a claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). Moreover, to the extent that Gordon sought to bring an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), no Bivens remedy is available against a federal agency. See W. Radio Servs. Co. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 578 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.