David Lockmiller v. United States ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DAVID LOCKMILLER,                               No. 19-16999
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:19-cv-04554-WHA
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
    BRYAN’S MARKET, INC.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 17, 2021**
    Before:      FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
    David Lockmiller appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing his action alleging Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) and state law
    claims. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a
    dismissal under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B). Barren v. Harrington, 
    152 F.3d 1193
    ,
    *
    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).
    1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Lockmiller’s negligence claim against
    the United States because Lockmiller failed to allege facts sufficient to state a
    plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009) (“A claim has
    facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
    draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for misconduct
    alleged.”); Lam v. United States, 
    979 F.3d 665
    , 672 (9th Cir. 2020) (setting forth
    elements of a FTCA claim).
    The district court properly dismissed Lockmiller’s negligence claim against
    Bryan’s Market, Inc. because Lockmiller failed to demonstrate diversity
    jurisdiction. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1332
    (a); Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 
    265 F.3d 853
    , 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (requirements for diversity jurisdiction).
    We reject as without merit Lockmiller’s contention that the FTCA’s
    limitations on attorney’s fees violated his First Amendment rights.
    All pending motions are denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    19-16999