Case Name: Vincent WHEELER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marie B. DE LA SIERRA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-11-14
Citations: 22 F. App'x 776
Docket Number: No. 00-56232; D.C. No. CV-99-9786-HLH
Parties: Vincent WHEELER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marie B. DE LA SIERRA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 776–776

Head Matter:
Vincent WHEELER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marie B. DE LA SIERRA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 00-56232.
D.C. No. CV-99-9786-HLH.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 5, 2001 .
Decided Nov. 14, 2001.
Before KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Because this panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, Wheeler’s request for oral argument is denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Vincent Wheeler appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his action for lack of diversity jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S?C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, and review for clear error the district court's findings of fact. Nike, Inc. v. Comercial Iberica de Exclusivas Deportivas, S.A., 20 F.3d 987, 990 (9th Cir.1994).
Here, both defendants are citizens of California. Wheeler failed to demonstrate that he is a citizen of Nevada or any state other than California, even though the district court gave him an opportunity to do so. See Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749-50 (9th Cir.1986). Accordingly, the district court did not err by dismissing the action for lack of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.