
    Dion ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations; the County of Kings, Defendants-Appel-lees.
    No. 14-17451.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 1, 2015.
    Dion Anderson, Delano, CA, pro se.
    Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Dion Anderson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 claim alleging constitutional violations stemming from purportedly false charges of battery on a correctional officer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir.2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Anderson’s claims against defendants Gibson, Cavazos and Lozano because Anderson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (requirements for facial plausibility); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988) (order) (explaining that there is “no legitimate claim of entitlement to a prison grievance procedure”).

The district court properly dismissed Anderson’s claims against defendant King County because Anderson failed to allege facts sufficient to establish municipal liability. See Jackson v. Barnes, 749 F.3d 755, 763-64 (9th Cir.2014) (discussing factual allegations sufficient to establish municipal liability based on a policy of inaction).

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