Sourav Bhattacharya v. Green Organization

MEMORANDUM

Sourav Sam Bhattacharya appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims in connection with alleged violations of his privacy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bhattacharya’s action because Bhattachar-ya failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See id. at 341-42 (although pro se -pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying as moot Bhattacharya’s motion to compel Arizona State University to respond to written deposition questions before any defendant had been served. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a trial court has broad discretion to permit.or deny discovery); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(d)(1) (“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)[.]”); Fed. R.Civ.P. 31(a)…