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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2024 MOLLY C.
02MEMORANDUM* DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING AND REHABILITATION; SHANNA JUDIE, Defendants-Appellees.
03Navarro, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2024** Before: CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
04Mustafa Ansari appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his mandamus action brought under 28 U.S.C.
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.