FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, No. 15-16685
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02492-MCE-
EFB
v.
JENNIFER P. SHAFFER; JERRY MEMORANDUM*
BROWN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Krzysztof F. Wolinski, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendants violated his constitutional rights and the Convention on the Transfer of
*
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).
Sentenced Persons by failing to transfer him to a Polish prison. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Wolinski’s action because Wolinski
failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims. See Hebbe v. Pliler,
627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed
liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible
claim for relief); see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (elements of a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976)
(prisoners have no liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment in a transfer).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint
without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that district court may dismiss
without leave to amend when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-16685