FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK ALEXANDRE MISSUD, I, No. 13-15357
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05468-EMC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2013 **
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Patrick Alexandre Missud, I, appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 putative class action alleging claims for
judicial and civic corruption in the fraudulent enforcement of local regulations
concerning towing, tree root services, sidewalk repairs, building inspections, and
*
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).
related tax assessments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004), and
we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Missud’s claims against the State of
California on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Montana v. Goldin
(In re Pegasus Gold Corp.), 394 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir. 2005) (absent waiver,
state and its agencies are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from private
actions in federal court).
The district court properly dismissed Missud’s claims against the City and
County of San Francisco, and its affiliated departments and agencies, because
Missud failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cognizable claim under federal law
or raise a substantial federal issue. See South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364,
369 (1976) (“The authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles
impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond
challenge.”); Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083,
1086-87 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331); see also Cholla Ready Mix, Inc., 382 F.3d at 973 (courts
need not accept as true conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of fact, or
unreasonable inferences).
2 13-15357
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Missud’s first
motion for reconsideration because Missud failed to establish grounds for such
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and factors regarding
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).
We do not review the district court’s order denying Missud’s second motion
for reconsideration because Missud did not file an amended notice of appeal from
that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).
Missud’s motions dated July 17 and 24, 2013 for judicial notice of
voluminous irrelevant documents filed with the district court, including those filed
during the pendency of this appeal, are denied. See Fed. R. Evid. 201.
Missud’s contentions regarding alleged corruption in the federal and state
judiciaries, fraud, and conspiracies against him, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15357