Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
D.C. No. CV-99-06619-AWI/LJO
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding.
Before WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California state prisoner Paul Bell appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of his constitutional rights to due process and to a grand jury indictment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.
We may affirm the district court's dismissal on any ground supported by the record. See Gemtel Corp. v. Community Redevelopment Agency, 23 F.3d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir.1994). Bell contends that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by his prosecution by information, rather than by grand jury indictment. This contention lacks merit because the due process clause does not compel the states to proceed by way of grand jury indictment when they initiate a prosecution. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 (1884); Morford v. Hocker, 394 F.2d 169, 170 (9th Cir.1968).
Bell's remaining contentions are rejected.
AFFIRMED.