Case Name: John E. LEMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIV OF CHILD SUPPORT DATA GATHERING UNIT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-03
Citations: 586 F. App'x 259
Docket Number: No. 10-35839
Parties: John E. LEMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIV OF CHILD SUPPORT DATA GATHERING UNIT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 586
Pages: 259–259

Head Matter:
John E. LEMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DIV OF CHILD SUPPORT DATA GATHERING UNIT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-35839.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
Dec. 3, 2014.
John Eddie Lemons, Sr., pro se.
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, 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
John E. Lemons appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his action arising from a paternity dispute and resulting tax refund offset for failure to pay child support. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir.2014) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Lemons's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Lemons failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1332(a)(1); Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086-87 (9th Cir.2009) (discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir.2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332).
To the extent that Lemons is seeking any relief in his October 21, 2013 motion other than reinstatement of this appeal, his motion is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.