Lester Busby v. Hollywood Ardmore Cooperative, Inc.

64 F.3d 666 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Lester BUSBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOLLYWOOD ARDMORE COOPERATIVE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-56544. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 2, 1995. * Decided Aug. 10, 1995. Before: ALARCON, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Lester Busby ("Busby") appeals pro se from the judgment of the district court denying his requested injunctive relief and dismissing his action against his landlord, Hollywood Ardmore Cooperative, Inc. ("HAC"). Busby argues that the district court erred by finding that he failed to demonstrate sufficient government involvement to subject the activities of HAC to the requirements of the due process clause. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 We review a district court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a cause of action de novo. See Everest and Jennings, Inc. v. American Motorist Ins. Co., 23…