Case Name: Sukit KUMVACHIRAPITAG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barack OBAMA, U.S. President, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-25
Citations: 617 F. App'x 804
Docket Number: No. 14-17084
Parties: Sukit KUMVACHIRAPITAG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barack OBAMA, U.S. President, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 617
Pages: 804–805

Head Matter:
Sukit KUMVACHIRAPITAG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barack OBAMA, U.S. President, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-17084.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
Filed Sept. 25, 2015.
Sukit Kumvachirapitag, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, 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
Sukit Kumvachirapitag appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ass'n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Kumvachirapitag failed to allege claims under federal law or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1332(a); see also Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006) (federal courts "have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party"); Ass'n of Am. Med. Colls., 217 F.3d at 778-79 (the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.