U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2026

Griego v. Momodu

Griego v. Momodu
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided September 1, 2026
Griego v. Momodu

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 1 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APRIL GRIEGO, No. 25-3795 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-00653-ART-NJK Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* REBECCA MOMODU; ALLYSA ANTOS; CHAPS HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Anne R. Traum, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2026** Before: SILVERMAN, N.R. SMITH, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

April Griego appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction her civil rights action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Lake v. Ohana Mil. Cmtys., LLC, 14

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

F.4th 993, 1000 (9th Cir. 2021) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Griego’s action because Griego failed to allege a federal question or establish the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (setting forth requirements for federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (setting forth requirements for diversity jurisdiction); Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo County, 863 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) (“The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)).

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).

To the extent that Griego is requesting to proceed in forma pauperis, it is denied as unnecessary because Griego’s in forma pauperis status from the district court carries over to this appeal. The motion for appointment of pro bono counsel (Docket Entry No. 9) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-3795

* The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.