From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zakat v. Highline Sch. Dist.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 4, 2014
586 F. App'x 397 (9th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 13-35511

12-04-2014

AALIYAH ZAKAT, pro se; Minor, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Susan Enfield, Superintendant; et al., Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00010-JLR MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Aaliyah Zakat appeals pro se from the district court's orders denying her motions for reconsideration of its orders dismissing her diversity action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying her prior reconsideration motions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (motion for reconsideration); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (compliance with local rules). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Zakat's second and third motions for reconsideration because Zakat failed to establish a basis for such relief. See W.D. Wash. R. 7(h)(1) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under local rules); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263 (setting forth grounds for reconsideration under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Zakat v. Highline Sch. Dist.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Dec 4, 2014
586 F. App'x 397 (9th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

Zakat v. Highline Sch. Dist.

Case Details

Full title:AALIYAH ZAKAT, pro se; Minor, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HIGHLINE SCHOOL…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Dec 4, 2014

Citations

586 F. App'x 397 (9th Cir. 2014)