EDWARD DAVID JONES, Jr. v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Former Governor of the State of CA;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD DAVID JONES, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Former
Governor of the State of CA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-15262
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00469-DAD-
BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Edward David Jones Jr. appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth
Amendment claims arising from his exposure to Valley Fever. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680
* 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
MAY 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15262
F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (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)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jones’s action because Jones failed to
allege facts sufficient to link defendants to any constitutional violation. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a plaintiff must allege facts that
“allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Jones’s action
without providing a third opportunity to amend the complaint because further
amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656
F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining
that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
To the extent Jones sought to bring claims on behalf of his deceased mother,
as a pro se litigant Jones lacks authority to bring such claims. See C.E. Pope
Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987).
Jones’s “motion to augment documents” (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --