ROSCOE CHAMBERS V. TIM LASKE, No. 18-55946 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROSCOE CHAMBERS, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-55946 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-03470-MWF-KES v. MEMORANDUM* TIM LASKE; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Roscoe Chambers, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging due process claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 42 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d * 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). 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Chambers’s action because Chambers failed to allege facts sufficient to state any cognizable claim for relief. 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 still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 1993) (elements of procedural due process claim). AFFIRMED. 2 18-55946
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
