NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANNY FABRICANT, No. 19-16797 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00030-JGZ- PSOT v. G. J. BISSETTE, Associate Warden at USP- MEMORANDUM* Tucson; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 2, 2020** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Danny Fabricant appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

* 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). review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Fabricant’s action was proper because, even if a Bivens remedy is available for his constitutional claims, Fabricant failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth elements of a § 1983 claim); Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Actions under § 1983 and those under Bivens are identical save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a federal actor under Bivens.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the first amended complaint without further leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

Fabricant’s motion for an order related to mail (Docket Entry No. 6) is

2 19-16797 denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 19-16797