Court Opinion

ID: 9955590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 20:01:34.112292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:06.634950
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 28 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONNELL BLEDSOE,                                No. 23-15805

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00158-DAD-KJN

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT; GEORGE ABDULLAH, San
Joaquin County Superior Court Judge;
SPENCER SINCLAIR, Attorney for Pearlie
Townes; JOHN M. HARRIS, Lawyer for San
Joaquin County Superior Court,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Donnell Bledsoe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

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

      *
             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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of

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 Bledsoe’s action because Bledsoe

failed to satisfy his 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). We do not

consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States

v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

      All pending motions and requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    23-15805