
    David N. OSOLINSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marisa BIGOT; DOE, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16219
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    FILED June 1, 2016
    David N. Osolinski, Pro Se.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, 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 civil detainee David N. Osolin-ski appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Osolinski’s Fourth Amendment claim because Osolinski failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 559, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (setting forth elements); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

The district court dismissed Osolinski’s state law claims on the ground that violations of state law do not give rise to a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, California’s constitution provides a right of privacy cause of action, see Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., 47 Cal.4th 272, 97 Cal.Rptr.3d 274, 211 P.3d 1063, 1073 (2009), and Osolinski expressly brought such a claim pursuant to the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. On remand, the district court should exercise its discretion as to whether it will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Osolinski’s state law claims.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     