NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT LEE ERSKINE, No. 21-35621 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02269-JR v. MEMORANDUM* ALL CORPORATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS, THAT PARTICIPATE IN THE MANUFACTURING, SALES, AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL; ALL STATE, FEDERAL AGENCIES, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT REGULATE THE MANUFACTURE, SALES AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOL AND ALL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 12, 2022** Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

* 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).

Robert Lee Erskine appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Erskine’s action because Erskine failed to state any plausible claims for relief. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327- (1989), abrogated on other grounds by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (“[T]he [PLRA] statute accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint;s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.”).

Erskine’s motions to appoint counsel are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-35621