eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2017-08

Patrick Bockari v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank , 695 F. App'x 309 ( 2017 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK A. BOCKARI,                             No.    17-15019
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02603-JAM-EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before:      SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Patrick A. Bockari appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging claims related to his bank account. We have
jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, Crum v. Circus Circus Enters.,
    231 F.3d 1129
    , 1130
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bockari’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Bockari failed to allege facts sufficient to show any
violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship. See
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
    ,
1332(a); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp.,
    385 F.3d 1177
    , 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004)
(addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332); Yokeno v. Mafnas,
    973 F.2d 803
    , 807-08 (9th Cir. 1992) (analyzing whether plaintiff’s complaint presented a
“substantial federal question”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to
amend Bockari’s second amended complaint after notifying Bockari of the
deficiencies in his pleadings and affording him two opportunities to amend. See
Chodos v. West Publ’g Co.,
    292 F.3d 992
    , 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth
standard of review and stating “when a district court has already granted a plaintiff
leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is
particularly broad” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2                                    17-15019