Court Opinion

ID: 9560991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:00:50.348782+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:39.371783
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 21 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH SACHS,                                   No. 22-16595

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00754-DLR

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MARYNA VOROBYOVA SACHS;
RAYMOND BRANTON,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Kenneth Sachs appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his

action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of state child custody

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of

      *
             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).
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 Sachs’s action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction because Sachs failed to allege a federal question or meet the

requirements for diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); Rivet v.

Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (to establish jurisdiction under

§ 1331, a federal question must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly

pleaded complaint” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

       The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying 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 leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be

futile).

       We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

       All pending requests are denied.

       AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    22-16595