
    Michael B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Vickie MADRID, MSW, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-15907.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 22, 2015.
    
    Filed July 1, 2015.
    Michael B. Williams, Coalinga, CA pro se.
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael B. Williams, a pre-trial civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predators (“SVP”) Act, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to state any cognizable claims. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Allen v. Illinois, 478 U.S. 364, 368-70, 106 S.Ct. 2988, 92 L.Ed.2d 296 (1986) (sexually-dangerous-person commitment proceedings are not “criminal” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against compulsory self-incrimination); Inouye v. Kemna, 504 F.3d 705, 712 n. 7 (9th Cir.2007) (test for Establishment Clause violation); Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir.2005) (elements of retaliation claim).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     