C. Amsterdam v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs

Ninth Circuit

C. Amsterdam v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs

564 F. App'x 297

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 18, 2014

Docket12-15672

StatusUnpublished

This text of 564 F. App'x 297 (C. Amsterdam v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C. Amsterdam v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 564 F. App'x 297 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in his action arising from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ (“OHA”) failure to provide him funds from a public trust created by the Hawaii Admission Act (“ § 5(f) trust”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings on Amster *298 dam’s breach of trust claim because Amsterdam failed to allege facts showing that defendants breached the terms of the § 5(f) trust by not providing him with trust funds. See Day v. Apoliona, 616 F.3d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir.2010) (OHA trustees, although limited to spending § 5(f) trust funds for enumerated trust purposes, “have broad discretion to decide how to serve those purposes”).

The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings on Amsterdam’s equal protection claim because Amsterdam failed to allege facts showing that defendants intentionally discriminated against him based on his membership in a protected class, or that defendants intentionally treated him differently than other similarly situated individuals without a rational basis. See Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1081-82 (9th Cir.2003) (requirements for equal protection claim); see also N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir.2008) (requirements for “class of one” equal protection claim).

The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings on Amsterdam’s free speech claim because Amsterdam failed to allege facts showing that defendants violated his First Amendment rights by not providing Amsterdam funds to travel to Washington D.C. to meet with congressional representatives. See Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540, 546, 103 S.Ct. 1997, 76 L.Ed.2d 129 (1983) (government is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in his action arising from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ (“OHA”) failure to provide him funds from a public trust created by the Hawaii Admission Act (“ § 5(f) trust”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle, 457 F.3d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings on Amster *298 dam’s breach of trust claim because Amsterdam failed to allege facts showing that defendants breached the terms of the § 5(f) trust by not providing him with trust funds. See Day v. Apoliona, 616 F.3d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir.2010) (OHA trustees, although limited to spending § 5(f) trust funds for enumerated trust purposes, “have broad discretion to decide how to serve those purposes”).

The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings on Amsterdam’s equal protection claim because Amsterdam failed to allege facts showing that defendants intentionally discriminated against him based on his membership in a protected class, or that defendants intentionally treated him differently than other similarly situated individuals without a rational basis. See Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1081-82 (9th Cir.2003) (requirements for equal protection claim); see also N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir.2008) (requirements for “class of one” equal protection claim).

The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings on Amsterdam’s free speech claim because Amsterdam failed to allege facts showing that defendants violated his First Amendment rights by not providing Amsterdam funds to travel to Washington D.C. to meet with congressional representatives. See Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540, 546, 103 S.Ct. 1997, 76 L.Ed.2d 129 (1983) (government is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 F. App'x 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-amsterdam-v-office-of-hawaiian-affairs-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack