Roy Cheesman v. Usdhs ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROY D. CHEESMAN, No. 20-35845
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:20-cv-03054-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, Transportation Security
Administration,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Stanley A. Bastian, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Roy D. Cheesman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action arising out of the screening of his luggage by Transportation
and Security Administration officials and the seizure of his handgun by customs
*
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).
agents in the Philippines. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cheesman’s action because Cheesman
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cheesman’s motion
for reconsideration because Cheesman failed to demonstrate any basis for relief.
See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63
(9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-35845