eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2018-12

Frances Ju v. State of Washington ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 5 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCES DU JU,                                  No. 18-35195
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:17-cv-06082-BHS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF WASHINGTON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 27, 2018**
Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Frances Du Ju appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging various constitutional claims arising out of
the foreclosure on her home, an unlawful detainer action in state court, and her
subsequent arrest. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de
*
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).
novo a dismissal under
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2). Barren v. Harrington,
    152 F.3d 1193
    , 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ju’s action because Ju 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); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009) (“[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 by denying Ju further leave to
amend because amendment would be futile. See Chodos v. West Publ’g Co.,
    292 F.3d 992
    , 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and noting that a
district court’s discretion is particularly broad when it has already granted leave to
amend).
AFFIRMED.
2                                      18-35195