Buck Daniel Moore v. Jordet;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BUCK DANIEL MOORE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JORDET; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-35270
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01376-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Oregon state prisoner Buck Daniel Moore appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations concerning his conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-35270 2
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th
Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Moore’s action because the amended
complaint did not “contain[] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted) (noting obligation to construe pro se pleadings
liberally).
Moore’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --