JAMES CONSTANT V. SCHORR LAW

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 19, 2022
• Docket: 22-55097
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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