Stephen Edwards v. Charles Schwab Bank

MEMORANDUM

Stephen S. Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil action alleging federal claims related to his mortgage documents. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Edwards’ action because Edwards failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining that a complaint must allege more than labels and conclusions and must allege sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory); see also Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (though pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim).

Denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1041 (setting forth standard of review); see also 12 U.S.C. § 2614 (prescribing at most a three-year…