Gonsalves v. Alm

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 28, 2026

Docket25-4822

StatusUnpublished

This text of Gonsalves v. Alm (Gonsalves v. Alm) 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

Gonsalves v. Alm, (9th Cir. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CELESTE M. GONSALVES, No. 25-4822 D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00053-SASP- Plaintiff - Appellant, WRP v. MEMORANDUM* Prosecutor STEVEN S. ALM; MARK YUEN, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Shanlyn A.S. Park, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 26, 2026**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Celeste M. Gonsalves appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.

2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gonsalves’s action because Gonsalves

failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Gomez v.

Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that allegations of

inadequate investigation are not sufficient to state a due process claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonsalves’s motion

for relief from judgment because Gonsalves failed to demonstrate any basis for

relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Gonsalves’s

action without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes

v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting

forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is

proper where amendment would be futile).

AFFIRMED.

2 25-4822

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CELESTE M. GONSALVES, No. 25-4822 D.C. No. 1:25-cv-00053-SASP- Plaintiff - Appellant, WRP v. MEMORANDUM* Prosecutor STEVEN S. ALM; MARK YUEN, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Shanlyn A.S. Park, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 26, 2026**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, MILLER, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Celeste M. Gonsalves appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.

2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gonsalves’s action because Gonsalves

failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Gomez v.

Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that allegations of

inadequate investigation are not sufficient to state a due process claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonsalves’s motion

for relief from judgment because Gonsalves failed to demonstrate any basis for

relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Gonsalves’s

action without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes

v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting

forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is

proper where amendment would be futile).

AFFIRMED.

2 25-4822

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal

556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)

Gomez v. Whitney

757 F.2d 1005 (Ninth Circuit, 1985)

Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

656 F.3d 1034 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)

Raymond Watison v. Mary Carter

668 F.3d 1108 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gonsalves v. Alm, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonsalves-v-alm-ca9-2026.