N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT IM R AN AHM AD JAM ALI, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. C OUNTY OF M AR IC OPA, a priva te m unic ipa l c orporation; e t a l .,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 13-17283 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-00613-DGC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Dav id G. C am

pbe ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 16, 2016 ** B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d C L IFTON, C irc uit Judge s. Im ran Ahm ah Ja

m a li a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing his ac tion a lle ging fe de ra l c la im s a rising out of his a

rre st photogra

ph. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a dism i ssa l 

# FIL ED AUG 25 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(1). Rhoade s v . Av on Prods. , Inc ., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th C ir. 2007). W e m a

y a ffirm on a ny ba sis supporte d by

the re c ord. Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm . Dism issa l of Ja

m a li’ s fe de ra l c la i m s wa s prope r be c a u se Ja m a li fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to sta t e any pla usible c l a im

for re l ie f. Se eAshc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to a void dism i ssa l , “ a c om pla i nt m ust c onta in suffic ie nt fa c t ua l m atte r, a c c e pte d a s true , to sta te a c l a im to re lie f that is pla

usible on its fa c e ” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)); se ealso Atwate r v . C ity of Lago Vista , 532 U.S. 318, 355 (2001) (a n arre st a nd booking proc e ss tha

t inc lude d photogra phing thearre ste e wa s “ not so e xtra ordina ry a s to viola

te the Fourth Am e ndm e nt” ); Paul v . Dav i s , 424 U.S. 693, 712-13 (1976) (re j e c ting plaintiff’ s argum e nt tha

t the disse m ination of a

booking photogra

ph a n d a rre st inform ation to loc a l re ta il store s viola

te d his right to priva

c y a s gua rante e d by

the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, a

n d Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nts); Le ev . C i ty of Los Ange le

s , 250 F.3d 668, 686 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ The Eighth Am e n dm e nt’ s prohibition of crue l a n d unusua l punishm e nts a

p plie s only

a fte r c onvic tion a

nd se nte nc e .” (c i tations a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)); Le v ald, Inc . v . C ity of Palm De

se rt , 998 F.2d 680, 684-85 (9th C ir. 1993) (de sc ribing the ty pe s of ta kings prote c te d by the Fifth Am e ndm e nt); Strandbe rg v . C ity of He le na, 791 F.2d 744, 748-49 (9th C ir. 1986) 1 3 - 1 7 2 8 3 2(The Ninth Am e n dm e nt “ ha s ne ve r be e n re c ogniz e d a s indepe nde ntly

se c uring a

ny c onstitutiona

l right, for purpose s of pursuing a c ivil rights c la im . ” ). C ontra ry to Ja m a li’ s c onte ntions, there wa s no fe d e ra l subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion ba se d on dive rsity of c itiz e nship. S

e e 28 U.S.C . § 1332; se ealso K ante r v . W

arne r-Lambe rt C

o. , 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th C ir. 2001) (“ [A] pa rty se e k ing to invoke

dive rsity jurisdic tion should be

a ble to a lle ge a ffirm ative ly the a c tua l c itiz e nship of there le va nt pa rtie s .” ). W e re je c t a s without me rit Jam a li’ s c o nte ntions tha t the distric t

c ourt a c te d outsideits a

uthority and othe rwise viola

t e d his rights in dism

issing his ac tion. W e do not c onside r m ate ria ls not pre se nte d to thedistric t c ourt. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 78(b); Unite d State s v . Elias , 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th C ir. 1990). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 7 2 8 3 3