MEMORANDUM **

David Kissi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging claims in connection with a foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly determined that Kissi failed to allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction because he alleged only state law claims in *530 his complaint and failed to allege diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1); see also 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, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332). We treat the judgment as a dismissal without prejudice. See Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice).

Appellees’ motion for judicial notice, filed on February 14, 2014, is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.