MEMORANDUM **
Rudie Thomas appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims related to nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings against his home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Thomass action because Thomas 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) (“A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ ”) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(6) (a substituted trustee is authorized to initiate foreclosure proceedings); U.S. ex rel. Hendow v. Univ. of Phoenix, 461 F.3d 1166, 1174 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth elements for a claim under the False Claims Act); L.A. Cty. Bar Assn v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 1992) (declaratory relief claim requires an “autonomous and independent dispute” of “vital importance” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Thomass contention that defendant was not validly substituted as the trustee under the Deed of Trust.
AFFIRMED.