DAVID DARBY V. HANIF CHOHAN, No. 15-35141 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED NOV 7 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID A. DARBY, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-35141 D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05027-BHS MEMORANDUM* HANIF CHOHAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. David A. Darby appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his quiet title action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. * 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). The district court properly dismissed Darby’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Darby failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); see also Virginia v. County of San Luis Obispo, 201 F.3d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Federal land patents … do not provide [a basis] for federal question jurisdiction.”); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332). 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). Darby’s contentions that the district court violated his due process rights are unpersuasive. To the extent Darby’s September 18, 2015, filing is directed to the court, it is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-35141

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.