Valame v. Trump

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 17, 2025
• Docket: 24-369
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VIKRAM VALAME, No. 24-369 D.C. No. 5:23-cv-03018-NC Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

DONALD J. TRUMP; CRAIG T. BROWN; JOEL C. SPANGENBERG; STEVEN L. KETT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Selective Service System; ISMAIL RAMSEY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted July 15, 2025***

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Vikram Valame appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action challenging the constitutionality of the Military Selective Service Act

(“MSSA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Wilson v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1083, 1090

(9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Valame’s action because Valame failed

to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Rostker v. Goldberg,

453 U.S. 57, 83 (1981) (rejecting the argument that the MSSA is unconstitutional

under the Fifth Amendment); Newman v. Wengler, 790 F.3d 876, 880 (9th Cir.

2015) (explaining that “we do not engage in anticipatory overruling of Supreme

Court precedent”); Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d 953, 959 (9th Cir. 2013)

(explaining that dismissal “under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper when the complaint either

(1) lacks a cognizable legal theory or (2) fails to allege sufficient facts to support a

cognizable legal theory”). We reject as meritless Valame’s contention that the

Equal Rights Amendment was ratified as the Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the

Constitution.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-369