Case Name: Helen LE; Khang Ninh, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard E. MCGREEVY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-01
Citations: 692 F. App'x 378
Docket Number: No. 16-17308
Parties: Helen LE; Khang Ninh, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard E. MCGREEVY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 378–379

Head Matter:
Helen LE; Khang Ninh, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Richard E. MCGREEVY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-17308
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2017
Filed June 1, 2017
Helen Le, Pro Se
Khang Ninh, Pro Se
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Helen Le and Khang Ninh appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equipment, Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Le and Ninh's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the federal claims were too insubstantial to confer jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Franklin v. Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) ("[T]he federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending requests and motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.