Mikhail Khoshan, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ross Morgan & Company, Inc.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIKHAIL KHOSHAN, individually and
on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ROSS MORGAN & COMPANY, INC.; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees,
And
CENTURION GROUP, LLC; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 12-55800
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01462-DSF-JC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2014**
FILED
APR 15 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Mikhail Khoshan appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
putative class action against his homeowners association and other private parties
alleging constitutional violations, among other claims. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th
Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Khoshan’s constitutional claims
because Khoshan failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants’ actions
constituted state action. See George v. Pac.-CSC Work Furlough, 91 F.3d 1227,
1229 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“Individuals bringing actions against private
parties for infringement of their constitutional rights . . . must show that the private
parties’ infringement somehow constitutes state action.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Khoshan’s
claims without leave to amend because Khoshan cannot correct the defects in his
complaint. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be
given unless the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment).
We reject Khoshan’s unfounded contentions concerning judicial bias.
AFFIRMED.
12-55800 2

-- 2 of 2 --