Ruth Camel, Estate v. Shirley Weber

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK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