AL ZEINY V. USA, No. 14-15917 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED SEP 19 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AL ZEINY, pro se, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-15917 D.C. No. 5:13-cv-01220-EJD MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2016** Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Al Zeiny appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of alleged efforts by the Central Intelligence Agency and its agents to harm Zeiny in various ways. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s * 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). dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Zeiny’s action because Zeiny failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See id. at 341-42 (though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to amend, because amendment would have been futile. See Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be futile). AFFIRMED. 2 14-15917

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.