SIVATHARAN NATKUNANATHAN V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, No. 15-56769 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SIVATHARAN NATKUNANATHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-56769 D.C. No. 8:15-cv-00895-DOC-JCG v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT; REDMOND K. BARNES, individually and as clerk, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Sivatharan Natkunanathan appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court to file his petitions. We have jurisdiction of this appeal * 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). Accordingly, appellant’s request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied. under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Brady v. United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the petition because Natkunanathan has failed to set forth any basis for subject matter jurisdiction over this petition. See Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (to invoke a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff needs to provide a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction); Poulos v. Caesars World, Inc., 379 F.3d 654, 662 (9th Cir. 2004) (there is no jurisdiction where a claim “appear[s] to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” or is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Natkunanathan’s complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.2d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard of review); Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile[.]”). 2 15-56769 The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Natkunanathan’s motion for reconsideration because Natkunanathan failed to establish any of the requirements for reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) 1263 (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). Natkunanathan’s motion for an alternative claim for relief (Docket Entry No. 13) and motion for reconsideration (Docket Entry No. 21) are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 15-56769
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.
