FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 9498130
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Mustafa Ansari v. Department of Employment, Training and Rehab

No. 9498130 · Decided April 30, 2024
No. 9498130 · Ninth Circuit · 2024 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
April 30, 2024
Citation
No. 9498130
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MUSTAFA ANSARI, No. 23-15718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
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2024 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Mustafa Ansari v. Department of Employment, Training and Rehab in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on April 30, 2024.
Use the citation No. 9498130 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →