John M. Hummasti v. REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN; ZAHRA BILOO, CAIR's San Francisco chapter director; TWITTER, INC.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN M. HUMMASTI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN; ZAHRA
BILOO, CAIR's San Francisco chapter
director; TWITTER, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-35091
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-01852-MO
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
DEC 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-35091
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 of 2 --