Jerome Grimes v. Sr Towing
This text of Jerome Grimes v. Sr Towing (Jerome Grimes v. Sr Towing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEROME L. GRIMES, No. 23-55251
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-01033-LL-BLM
v. MEMORANDUM* SR TOWING,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Linda Lopez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 17, 2024**
Before: WARDLAW, BADE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Jerome L. Grimes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging deprivation of his personal property. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
* 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). Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Grimes’s action because Grimes failed
to satisfy his burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 (setting forth requirements for federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a) (setting forth requirements for diversity jurisdiction); Ashoff v. City of
Ukiah, 130 F.3d 409, 410 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that 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.”).
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).
AFFIRMED.
2 23-55251
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jerome Grimes v. Sr Towing, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerome-grimes-v-sr-towing-ca9-2024.