Court Opinion

ID: 9363266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 18:58:29.456918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:30.196534
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         DEC 19 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES CONSTANT,                                 No. 22-55097

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-08608-JFW-KES

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
SCHORR LAW, A Professional Corporation
which acts as an Officer of the Court, a
Public Entity,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 8, 2022**

Before:      WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

      James Constant appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

sua sponte his action arising out of a contract with a law firm. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team

Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Constant’s action for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Constant failed to allege any violation

of federal law or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); Kuntz v.

Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of

citizenship under § 1332); Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2002)

(discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331); see also

Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-20 & n.9 (1981) (explaining that a

private attorney or public defender does not act under color of state law within the

meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is not a government official).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Constant’s

action without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See

Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to

amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   22-55097