Latonya R. Finley v. THOMAS REARDON, Judge;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LATONYA R. FINLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THOMAS REARDON, Judge; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-16474
D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00908-CRB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
LaTonya R. Finley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging violations of constitutional and statutory rights
arising from her arrest and criminal prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim,
* 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).
FILED
JUN 28 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-16474
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990), and for
abuse of discretion a denial of leave to amend, Gompper v. VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d
893, 898 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Finley’s action because Finley failed
to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Finley’s
complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile, as
Finley’s claims are belied by documents of which the district court correctly took
judicial notice. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir.
2000) (explaining that a “district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to
amend when amendment would be futile”); see also Sprewell v. Golden State
Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he court need not . . . accept as
true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by
exhibit.”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-16474
Finley’s request for judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --