Heather Stringham v. George Bush ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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