Court Opinion

ID: 9363263
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 18:58:28.458002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:31.548367
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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