232 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2000), 99-16526, Ansari v. Lawrence Rd. Apartments

Docket Nº:99-16526, 99-16529
Citation:232 F.3d 893
Party Name:Mustafa ANSARI; Atiga Arefa, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LAWRENCE ROAD APARTMENTS, a partnership; Carole Glodney, President; G & K Management Co., Inc.; Goldrich; Jona Goldrich; Kest; Debbie Winningham, aka Deborah Farris; Sharri Hughes; Terri Pendleton; Ancel Romero; J. Peterson, Police Officer; the City of Santa Clara, sued individually and in thei
Case Date:August 10, 2000
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 893

232 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2000)

Mustafa ANSARI; Atiga Arefa, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

LAWRENCE ROAD APARTMENTS, a partnership; Carole Glodney, President; G & K Management Co., Inc.; Goldrich; Jona Goldrich; Kest; Debbie Winningham, aka Deborah Farris; Sharri Hughes; Terri Pendleton; Ancel Romero; J. Peterson, Police Officer; the City of Santa Clara, sued individually and in their official capacities; Andres Marquez; Laura Griffis; Winnie Jacobson; R. Hummelgard; Linda Ruplinger; C. Bonn; J. Peterson, # P9167, Police Officer, City of Santa Clara; Tim Debbie, Anita, Thomas (last names unknown); Maria Martin; Sheryl Mandelbaum; Gary Sullivan; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Sandra A. Faithful, Honorable; Laurel Tournegeau; Sharon Lake, Defendants-Appellees.

D.C. No. CV-96-21036-JF.

Nos. 99-16526, 99-16529

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 10, 2000

Submitted July 17, 2000. [**]

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Jeremy Fogel, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Mustafa Ansari and Atiga Arefa appeal pro se the dismissal of their action for: fraud; breach of contract; interference with the right to marital association and property; intentional infliction of emotional distress; abuse of process; and violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, 1985, 2000d-1, 3601-3631 (the Federal Housing Act ("FHA")), and the First, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Despite several amendments, Ansari and Arefa's complaint fails to provide facts sufficient to support their allegations of discrimination, retaliation, and FHA violations. See, e.g., Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1998) ("Conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP