FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SOURAV SAM BHATTACHARYA, No. 13-17385
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01064-SRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GREEN ORGANIZATION; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Sourav Sam Bhattacharya appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims in connection with alleged
violations of his privacy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly dismissed Bhattacharya’s action because
Bhattacharya failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See id. at
341-42 (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must
present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying as moot
Bhattacharya’s motion to compel Arizona State University to respond to written
deposition questions before any defendant had been served. See Hallett v. Morgan,
296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review and explaining
that a trial court has broad discretion to permit or deny discovery); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(d)(1) (“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the
parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)[.]”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)
(explaining that a party must seek leave of court to depose by written question any
person “before the time specified in Rule 26(d)”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bhattacharya’s
motion for reconsideration because Bhattacharya 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 grounds for
reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).
We reject Bhattacharya’s contention that the district court failed to address
2 13-17385
his motion for joinder because the record reflects, and Bhattacharya concedes in
his motion filed on February 12, 2014, that he never filed a motion for joinder.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-17385