Court Opinion

ID: 9406742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-03 17:01:02.53984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:33.250453
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 3 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUTH CAMEL, ESTATE,                             No. 22-16068

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00645-KJM-KJN

 v.

SHIRLEY NASH WEBER; JUAN         MEMORANDUM*
TORRES; LEE GARVEY; ANNA RUSSEL;
TY NGUYEN; SYLVIA PHELAN,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Ruth Camel, Estate, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule 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).
Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3). Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741

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

       The district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s action because plaintiff

failed to satisfy the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Ashoff v.

City of Ukiah, 130 F.3d 409, 410 (9th Cir. 1997) (the plaintiff has the burden of

establishing subject matter jurisdiction); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the

court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must

dismiss the action.”); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir.

2004) (the court is obligated to consider sua sponte whether it has subject matter

jurisdiction).

       We do not consider arguments and allegations 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                                    22-16068