Rapheal Russell v. Myong Mueller

Ninth Circuit

Rapheal Russell v. Myong Mueller

708 F. App'x 382

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 26, 2017

Docket17-35697

StatusUnpublished

This text of 708 F. App'x 382 (Rapheal Russell v. Myong Mueller) 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.

Bluebook

Rapheal Russell v. Myong Mueller, 708 F. App'x 382 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rapheal G. Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action arising from a property dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Russell’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Russell failed to allege a federal question or jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (conferring jurisdiction on district courts in “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996) (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) applies only when the state citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from each defendant).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009),

We do not consider documents not presented to the district court because they are not part of the record on appeal. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Rapheal G. Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action arising from a property dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Russell’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Russell failed to allege a federal question or jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (conferring jurisdiction on district courts in “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996) (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) applies only when the state citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from each defendant).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009),

We do not consider documents not presented to the district court because they are not part of the record on appeal. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 F. App'x 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rapheal-russell-v-myong-mueller-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack