*1 Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Joshua Neil Harrell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 *2 U.S.C. § 1915A, Resnick v. Hayes , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Harrell’s action because Harrell 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 present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Lacey v. Maricopa County , 693 F.3d 896, 918-19 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (setting forth requirements for false arrest and malicious prosecution claims).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Harrell’s third amended complaint without leave to amend because further 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).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-15863

[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

[**] Harrell consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

[***] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).