Tierney v. State of California

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 28, 2026
• Docket: 24-6465
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERROL STEWART TIERNEY; JAMES No. 24-6465 IGNATIUS DIAMOND, D.C. No. 5:24-cv-01979-SVW-PD Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, as a Foreign State; STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, named as California Bar Association, political subdivision of the State; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; ROB BONTA, Attorney General California,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 22, 2026**

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Errol Stewart Tierney and James Ignatius Diamond appeal pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction their

action seeking a writ of quo warranto against California officials. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Seismic Reservoir 2020,

Inc. v. Paulsson, 785 F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed appellants’ action because appellants

failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a

Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89, 104 (1998) (explaining that the party invoking

federal jurisdiction has the burden to establish its existence and that an action may

be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the alleged federal claim

is “wholly insubstantial and frivolous” or “otherwise completely devoid of merit as

not to involve a federal controversy” (citations and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

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).

Appellants’ motion (Docket Entry Nos. 13, 14) for a stay is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6465