Murugaiyan v. Anderson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SENTHIL MOHAN MURUGAIYAN, No. 24-1299

D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-05272-CRB v.

MEMORANDUM* KATE ANDERSON, General Manager, ESA, Pleasanton; DUSTIN ROBERT MARTIN, District Manager; ESA MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Senthil Mohan Murugaiyan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various federal and state law claims arising during

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. his time at an extended stay hotel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Murugaiyan’s action because Murugaiyan failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that, to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Murugaiyan’s contentions that the district court was biased against him.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-1299