EL v. CRAIL (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Ingram El appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging breach of contract. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed plaintiff's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to allege plausibly that his action arose under a treaty of the United States, or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (jurisdictional dismissal is warranted where claims are “made solely for the purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction” (citation omitted)); Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (requirements for asserting diversity under § 1332).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.