Neil Johnson v. Comfort Residential Partners , 467 F. App'x 598 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 25 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    NEIL M. JOHNSON,                                 No. 11-15459
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00731-LRH-
    RAM
    v.
    COMFORT RESIDENTIAL PARTNERS,                    MEMORANDUM *
    LLC; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted January 17, 2012 **
    Before:        LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Neil M. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
    his action challenging construction defects in his now-foreclosed home. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo, Kuntz v. Lamar Corp.,
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    385 F.3d 1177
    , 1181 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action for lack of subject
    matter jurisdiction. First, the court lacked diversity jurisdiction because Johnson
    and several of the defendants are citizens of Nevada. See 
    id. at 1181
     (requiring
    complete diversity of citizenship). Second, the court lacked federal question
    jurisdiction because Johnson’s state law claims neither included a federal right or
    immunity as an essential element nor raised a substantial federal issue. See
    Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 
    582 F.3d 1083
    , 1086-87
    (9th Cir. 2009) (requirements of federal question jurisdiction). Finally, Johnson
    failed to establish that the federal statutes cited in his complaint served as a source
    of any substantive federal right to file a civil action. See Touche Ross & Co. v.
    Redington, 
    442 U.S. 560
    , 575-76 (1979) (setting forth factors to determine if
    federal criminal statutes provide implied right to file civil claim); Anderson v.
    Warner, 
    451 F.3d 1063
    , 1067 (9th Cir. 2006) (
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     does not grant a
    substantive right, but only a way to vindicate federal rights elsewhere conferred).
    Johnson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    Defendants’ motion for judicial notice is granted.
    Johnson’s pending motions are denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    11-15459