- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Lawson v. Citicorp Trust Bank
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Tracy D. Lawson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to amend. Hartmann v. Cal. Dep't of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1129 (9th Cir. 2013). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Denial of Lawson's motion for leave to amend her complaint was not an abuse of discretion because amendment would be futile. See Hartmann, 707 F.3d at 1130; see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 819, 824 (Ct. App. 2011) (California law does not "provide for a judicial action to determine whether the person initiating the foreclosure process is indeed authorized" (citation omitted)).
Lawson's contention that the district court held her to the standards of a practicing attorney is not supported by the record.
AFFIRMED.
Alert