MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Buck Daniel Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations concerning his conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Moore’s action because the amended complaint did not “contain[ ] enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-12 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (noting obligation to construe pro se pleadings liberally)-

Moore’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.