JOHN HUMMASTI V. REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 19, 2022·No. 22-35091·Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN M. HUMMASTI, No. 22-35091

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:21-cv-01852-MO

v. MEMORANDUM* REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN; ZAHRA BILOO, CAIR's San Francisco chapter director; TWITTER, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 8, 2022**

Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

John M. Hummasti appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging freedom of speech, freedom of

travel, and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

* 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). review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Watison v. Carter, 668

F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hummasti’s action because Hummasti

failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible violation of his constitutional

rights. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that

although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present

factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); L.W. v. Grubbs,

974 F.2d 119, 120 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating that § 1983 claims must be asserted

against state actors).

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

for reconsideration because Hummasti set forth no valid grounds for

reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for

reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-35091

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN M. HUMMASTI, No. 22-35091

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:21-cv-01852-MO

v. MEMORANDUM* REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN; ZAHRA BILOO, CAIR's San Francisco chapter director; TWITTER, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 8, 2022**

Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

John M. Hummasti appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging freedom of speech, freedom of

travel, and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

* 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). review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Watison v. Carter, 668

F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hummasti’s action because Hummasti

failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible violation of his constitutional

rights. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that

although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present

factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); L.W. v. Grubbs,

974 F.2d 119, 120 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating that § 1983 claims must be asserted

against state actors).

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

for reconsideration because Hummasti set forth no valid grounds for

reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for

reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-35091

JOHN HUMMASTI V. REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, (9th Cir. 2022).

Pincite

JOHN HUMMASTI V. REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN (JOHN HUMMASTI V. REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hebbe v. Pliler

627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

L.W. v. Dee Grubbs, Thomas Nelson Marlin Hutton Richard Hill James Nanson

974 F.2d 119 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

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)