NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BO LIU, No. 18-55813 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:17-cv-00343-PSG-SHK v. MEMORANDUM* CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Bo Liu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s determination regarding subject matter jurisdiction. Gingery v. City of Glendale, 831 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir.

* 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).

2016). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Liu’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint is obviously frivolous. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A paid complaint that is obviously frivolous does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction, and may be dismissed sua sponte before service of process.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-55813