Case ID: f-appx_658/html/0355-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David A. DARBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hanif CHOHAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-35141
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 7, 2016
    
      David A. Darby, Pro Se.
    Taylor Ross Hallvik, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Vancouver, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David A. Darby appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his quiet title action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §. 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Darby’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Darby failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); see also Virgin v. County of San Luis Obispo, 201 F.3d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Federal land patents ... do not provide [a basis] for federal question jurisdiction.”); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Darby’s contentions that the district court violated his due process rights, are unpersuasive.

To the extent Darby’s September 18, 2015, filing is directed to the court, it is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.