Charles Brooks v. Charles Brooks , 692 F. App'x 888 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES ANTHONY BROOKS, No. 16-17257
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:15-cv-05237-HRL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES EDWARDS BROOKS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Howard R. Lloyd, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted June 26, 2017***
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
Appellant consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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) depriv[ed] 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.
2 16-17257