Case Name: Christian JOUBERT, Personal Representative of the Maria Joubert Estate Acting pro se and individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROWN WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP.; et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-12
Citations: 466 F. App'x 588
Docket Number: No. 10-35713
Parties: Christian JOUBERT, Personal Representative of the Maria Joubert Estate Acting pro se and individually, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. BROWN WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP.; et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 466
Pages: 588–588

Head Matter:
Christian JOUBERT, Personal Representative of the Maria Joubert Estate Acting pro se and individually, Plaintiff— Appellant, v. BROWN WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORP.; et al., Defendants.
No. 10-35713.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Jan. 12, 2012.
Christian Joubert, Bellingham, WA, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
Christian Joubert appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action alleging state law claims arising from the death of his mother. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082,1086 (9th Cir.2008). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal without leave to amend. Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Joubert's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Joubert alleged neither a federal question nor complete diversity between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1333-1332.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Joubert's action without leave to amend after concluding that amendment would be futile. See Simon v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir.2008) ("[C]ourts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.")
Joubert's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.