Jack Strubel, Jr. v. Saif Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Jack Strubel, Jr. v. Saif Corporation

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JACK ALFRED STRUBEL, Jr., No. 20-35363

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:18-cv-00881-AA v.

MEMORANDUM* SAIF CORPORATION; CHEMEKETA COMMUNITY COLLEGE,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 18, 2021** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Jack Alfred Strubel, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action regarding worker’s compensation benefits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) (dismissal for lack 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). subject matter jurisdiction); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Strubel’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Strubel failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his second amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332); Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331).

However, a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice. See Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm the dismissal, and instruct the district court to amend the judgment to reflect that the dismissal of this action is without prejudice.

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; REMANDED with instructions to amend the judgment.

2 20-35363

Reference

Status
Unpublished