Ruth Camel, Estate v. Shirley Weber ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUTH CAMEL, ESTATE, No. 22-16068
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00645-KJM-KJN
v.
SHIRLEY NASH WEBER; JUAN MEMORANDUM*
TORRES; LEE GARVEY; ANNA RUSSEL;
TY NGUYEN; SYLVIA PHELAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Ruth Camel, Estate, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of
*
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).
Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3). Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741
F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s action because plaintiff
failed to satisfy the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Ashoff v.
City of Ukiah, 130 F.3d 409, 410 (9th Cir. 1997) (the plaintiff has the burden of
establishing subject matter jurisdiction); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.”); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir.
2004) (the court is obligated to consider sua sponte whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction).
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).
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 22-16068