Hallford v Clinton

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS

GARY WILLIAM HALLFORD, No. 10-17547

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-04488-WHA Northern District of California, v. San Francisco

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, ORDER Defendant - Appellee.

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

The memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this order replaces the

memorandum disposition filed on May 17, 2011.

With this change, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for

rehearing. The petition for rehearing is denied. FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 20 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GARY WILLIAM HALLFORD, No. 10-17547

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-04488-WHA

v. MEMORANDUM * HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2011**

Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Gary William Hallford appeals pro se from the

district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim of his action seeµing a Writ of

Prohibition against the Secretary of State to prevent her from enforcing an age

requirement in hiring employees for the United Nations. We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 28 U.S.C. y 1291. We review de novo the district courtùs decision to dismiss

a complaint under 28 U.S.C. y 1915A, Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th

Cir. 2003). We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its order

dismissing the case, filed on November 1, 2010.

AFFIRMED.