Court Opinion

ID: 9964743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 18:00:56.142663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:41.383809
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 30 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MUSTAFA ANSARI,                                 No. 23-15718

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00561-GMN-NJK

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT,
TRAINING AND REHABILITATION;
SHANNA JUDIE,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                   Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Mustafa Ansari appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his mandamus action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the elements of mandamus are

      *
             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).
satisfied. Johnson v. Reilly, 349 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm

on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59

(9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

      Denial of Ansari’s petition for writ of mandamus was proper because Ansari

may not seek federal mandamus against a state agency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361

(stating that mandamus relief may be sought against an officer, employee, or

agency of the United States). Further, Ansari did not demonstrate a clear and

certain claim to unemployment benefits. See Johnson, 349 F.3d at 1154 (setting

forth the elements for mandamus relief).

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not

consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias,

921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

      Appellees’ motion to expand the record on appeal (Docket Entry No. 14) is

denied as unnecessary.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                 23-15718