MUSTAFA ANSARI V. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND REHAB, ET AL, No. 23-15718 (9th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 30 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUSTAFA ANSARI, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-15718 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00561-GMN-NJK v. MEMORANDUM* DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND REHABILITATION; SHANNA JUDIE, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2024** Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Mustafa Ansari appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his mandamus action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the elements of mandamus are * 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). satisfied. Johnson v. Reilly, 349 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. Denial of Ansari’s petition for writ of mandamus was proper because Ansari may not seek federal mandamus against a state agency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (stating that mandamus relief may be sought against an officer, employee, or agency of the United States). Further, Ansari did not demonstrate a clear and certain claim to unemployment benefits. See Johnson, 349 F.3d at 1154 (setting forth the elements for mandamus relief). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). Appellees’ motion to expand the record on appeal (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 2 23-15718

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.