Stuart Robinson v. City of Seattle

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 14, 2025
• Docket: 24-4357
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BARBARA A. STUART ROBINSON, No. 24-4357 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-01004-RSL Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* CITY OF SEATTLE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 12, 2025**

Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Barbara A. Stuart Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her action concerning the Seattle police department’s failure to respond

to her call. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lake

v. Ohana Mil. Cmtys., LLC, 14 F.4th 993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2021) (dismissal for lack

* 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). of subject matter jurisdiction); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.

2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stuart Robinson’s action because

Stuart Robinson failed to satisfy her burden of establishing subject matter

jurisdiction. See 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

28 U.S.C. § 1331 (setting forth basis for federal question jurisdiction).

Because Stuart Robinson did not sufficiently raise in the district court her

contentions concerning screening or an interlocutory injunction, we do not

consider them. See Friedman v. AARP, Inc., 855 F.3d 1047, 1057 (9th Cir. 2017)

(“Our general rule is that we do not consider an issue not passed upon below.”);

Bracken v. Okura, 869 F.3d 771, 776 n.3 (9th Cir. 2017) (“To have been properly

raised below, [an] argument must be raised sufficiently for the trial court to rule on

it.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Stuart Robinson’s motion (Docket Entry No. 6) to file a supplemental

opening brief is granted. The clerk will file Stuart Robinson’s brief submitted at

Docket Entry No. 5.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-4357