Michael Ingram El v. Joe Crail ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 15 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL INGRAM EL, No. 19-16866
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01976-MCE-EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOE CRAIL; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Michael Ingram El appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging breach of contract. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Naffe v. Frey, 789
*
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).
F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to allege plausibly that his action arose
under a treaty of the United States, or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1332(a); Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir.
2004) (jurisdictional dismissal is warranted where claims are “made solely for the
purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction” (citation omitted)); Kanter v. Warner-
Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (requirements for asserting
diversity under § 1332).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-16866