NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTT METCALF, No. 16-35087
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00034-REB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OLIVIA CRAVEN, Executive Director of
the Idaho Comm of Pardons and Parole; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Ronald E. Bush, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 8, 2017***
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Scott Metcalf appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
Metcalf consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Belanus v. Clark, 796
F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2015) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v.
Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Steckman v.
Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.
Dismissal of Metcalf’s action was proper because Metcalf failed to allege
facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief on the basis that his sentences
were not properly calculated. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.”).
Metcalf’s motion for appointment of counsel, filed on May 13, 2016, is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-35087