Torres

MEMORANDUM **

Thomas Henderson appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his third amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that defendants conspired against him to fabricate charges resulting in his arrest and trial for stalking. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l), Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). The district court correctly concluded that Henderson failed to allege facts sufficient to support his conspiracy claim. See Buckey v. County of Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir.1992). As the district court had already granted three opportunities for Henderson to craft a successful complaint, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying him a fourth. See Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829 F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir.1987). The district court properly declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over Henderson’s state claims after his federal claims were dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (c); United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 , 86 S.Ct. 1130 , 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966).

We review the district court’s decision not to appoint…