FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              SEP 19 2016

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS



                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI,                           No. 15-16685

              Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02492-MCE-
                                                 EFB
 v.

JENNIFER P. SHAFFER; JERRY                       MEMORANDUM*
BROWN,

              Defendants-Appellees.


                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                 Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 13, 2016**

Before:      HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Krzysztof F. Wolinski, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that

defendants violated his constitutional rights and the Convention on the Transfer of


      *
             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).
Sentenced Persons by failing to transfer him to a Polish prison. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 

, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Wolinski’s action because Wolinski

failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims. See Hebbe v. Pliler,

, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed

liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible

claim for relief); see also West v. Atkins, 

, 48 (1988) (elements of a

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Meachum v. Fano, 

, 225 (1976)

(prisoners have no liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment in a transfer).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint

without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See

Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 

, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that district court may dismiss

without leave to amend when amendment would be futile).

      AFFIRMED.




                                            2                                      15-16685