NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AL ZEINY, pro se, No. 14-15917
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:13-cv-01220-EJD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Al Zeiny appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of alleged efforts by the
Central Intelligence Agency and its agents to harm Zeiny in various ways. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
*
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).
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Zeiny’s action because Zeiny failed to
allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See id. at 341-42
(though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present
factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Johnson v.
Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A Rule
12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the
absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to
amend, because amendment would have been futile. See Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d
1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that
leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-15917