John Lemons, Sr. v. Div of Child Support Data Gath , 586 F. App'x 259 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               DEC 03 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOHN E. LEMONS,                                   No. 10-35839
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01129-JCC
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    DIV OF CHILD SUPPORT DATA
    GATHERING UNIT; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 18, 2014**
    Before:        LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    John E. Lemons appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
    action arising from a paternity dispute and resulting tax refund offset for failure to
    pay child support. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de
    *
    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).
    novo. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 
    741 F.3d 1082
    , 1086 (9th Cir.
    2014) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Barren v. Harrington, 
    152 F.3d 1193
    , 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)). We
    affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Lemons’s action for
    lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Lemons failed to allege any violation of
    federal law or diversity of citizenship in his complaint. See 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
    ,
    1332(a)(1); Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 
    582 F.3d 1083
    ,
    1086-87 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction
    under § 1331); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 
    385 F.3d 1177
    , 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004)
    (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332).
    To the extent that Lemons is seeking any relief in his October 21, 2013
    motion other than reinstatement of this appeal, his motion is denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   10-35839