From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robertson v. Qadri

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 220
Oct 6, 2010
399 F. App'x 219 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 09-15355.

Submitted September 13, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed October 6, 2010.

Wade Robertson, Stanford, CA, pro se.

Peter Dixon, Esquire, Michael Kenneth Johnson, Esquire, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 5:06-cv-04624-JF.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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

Wade Robertson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in his action alleging false imprisonment and false arrest, and from the order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for lack of diversity jurisdiction, and review for clear error its factual determinations. Kroske v. U.S. Bank Corp., 432 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2005). We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend, Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 555 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 2009), and the denial of a motion for reconsideration, Sch. Dist. No. U, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not clearly err by finding that Robertson failed to establish that he was domiciled in a state different from defendants, and thus properly dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction. See Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1986) (listing factors for courts to consider in determining domicile, and reviewing for clear error district court's determination of domicile); see also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) ("the party asserting diversity jurisdiction bears the burden of proof).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Robertson leave to amend to allege a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because amendment would have been futile. See Ahlmeyer, 555 F.3d at 1055 ("futility of amendment alone can justify the denial of a motion [to amend]"); Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703-05 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that section 1983 claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), even though plaintiff was no longer in custody, because success on the claims would necessarily imply the invalidity of plaintiffs convictions). Robertson's res judicata argument is unpersuasive.

The district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying Robertson's motion for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.

Robertson's request for judicial notice is granted, and his request for a stay is denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Robertson v. Qadri

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 220
Oct 6, 2010
399 F. App'x 219 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Robertson v. Qadri

Case Details

Full title:Wade ROBERTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shiraz QADRI; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Page 220

Date published: Oct 6, 2010

Citations

399 F. App'x 219 (9th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Robertson v. Cartinhour

The dismissal of this case was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit after four years of litigation. See Robertson v.…