Ruth Camel, Estate v. Shirley Weber

Ninth Circuit

Ruth Camel, Estate v. Shirley Weber

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 3, 2023

Docket22-16068

StatusUnpublished

This text of Ruth Camel, Estate v. Shirley Weber (Ruth Camel, Estate v. Shirley Weber) 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

Ruth Camel, Estate v. Shirley Weber, (9th Cir. 2023).

Pincite

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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

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