Case Name: Arlen Porter SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 432
Docket Number: No. 16-35996
Parties: Arlen Porter SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 432–432

Head Matter:
Arlen Porter SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-35996
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 26, 2017
OCTOBER 3, 2017
Arlen Porter Smith, Umatilla, OR, pro se.
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arlen Porter Smith, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his diversity action arising from the loss of his legal materials and intellectual property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Smith's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Smith failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the amount in controversy was satisfied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (requirements for diversity jurisdiction); Naffe, 789 F.3d at 1139-40 (while the amount claimed on the face of the complaint generally controls, dismissal is warranted if it appears "to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 'We treat the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as being without prejudice. See Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).