Abdul Karim Hassan v. STATE OF MONTANA; LINDA McCULLOCH

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABDUL KARIM HASSAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MONTANA; LINDA
McCULLOCH,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-35402
D.C. No. 6:11-cv-00072-DWM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2013**
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Abdul Karim Hassan, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
MAY 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d
696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hassan’s action because Hassan failed
to advance a cognizable legal theory as to why Montana’s requirement that
candidates sign an oath declaring that they are constitutionally eligible for the
Presidency before being placed on the ballot violates the Constitution. See id.
(dismissal for failure to state a claim can be “based on the lack of a cognizable
legal theory”); see also Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551
U.S. 644, 663 (2007) (“[A] statute dealing with a narrow, precise, and specific
subject is not submerged by a later enacted statute covering a more generalized
spectrum.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Branch v. Smith, 538
U.S. 254, 273 (2003) (“An implied repeal will only be found where provisions in
two statutes are in ‘irreconcilable conflict,’ or where the latter Act covers the
whole subject of the earlier one and ‘is clearly intended as a substitute.’” (citation
omitted)); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972) (“[A] State has an interest,
if not a duty, to protect the integrity of its political processes from frivolous or
fraudulent candidacies.”).
Hassan’s arguments concerning the absurdity doctrine are unpersuasive. See
Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 60 (1930) (noting that the absurdity doctrine
12-35402 2

-- 2 of 3 --

will “override the literal terms of a statute only under rare and exceptional
circumstances”).
AFFIRMED.
12-35402 3

-- 3 of 3 --