Opinion
No. 20-35845
03-22-2021
ROY D. CHEESMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Transportation Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:20-cv-03054-SAB MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
Stanley A. Bastian, District Judge, Presiding Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Roy D. Cheesman appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action arising out of the screening of his luggage by Transportation and Security Administration officials and the seizure of his handgun by customs agents in the Philippines. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cheesman's action because Cheesman failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. 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 denying Cheesman's motion for reconsideration because Cheesman failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.