Narrative Opinion Summary
Charles August Schlund III appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his action, which included allegations of a broad conspiracy involving torture and surveillance implants. The appeal falls under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. After a de novo review, the court affirms the dismissal. The district court was correct in granting the motion to dismiss filed by President Bush, as Schlund's claims were deemed conclusory and based on unreasonable inferences regarding the deprivation of his constitutional rights. Conclusory allegations of conspiracy to deny due process were found insufficient to establish a claim. Schlund’s other arguments were also deemed meritless. The court's decision is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent, except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was considered under the jurisdiction granted by 28 U.S.C. § 1291, allowing the court to review the district court's dismissal of the case.
Reasoning: The appeal falls under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Conspiracy Claims and Due Processsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that allegations of a conspiracy to deny due process must be supported by more than mere conclusory statements to establish a claim.
Reasoning: Conclusory allegations of conspiracy to deny due process were found insufficient to establish a claim.
Non-precedential Nature of the Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court specified that its decision is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent, in accordance with circuit rules.
Reasoning: The court's decision is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent, except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Pleading Standard: Conclusory Allegationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the plaintiff's claims were based on conclusory allegations and unreasonable inferences, which were insufficient to state a viable legal claim.
Reasoning: Schlund's claims were deemed conclusory and based on unreasonable inferences regarding the deprivation of his constitutional rights.
Standard of Review for Dismissal: De Novosubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court conducted a de novo review of the district court's decision to dismiss the action, ensuring an independent examination of the legal conclusions.
Reasoning: After a de novo review, the court affirms the dismissal.