HELEN LE V. RICHARD MCGREEVY, No. 16-17308 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 1 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELEN LE; KHANG NINH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-17308 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01447-JAM-AC v. MEMORANDUM* RICHARD E. McGREEVY; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2017** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Helen Le and Khang Ninh appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equipment, Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014), and 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 Le and Ninh’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the federal claims were too insubstantial to confer jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Franklin v. Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (“[T]he federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or 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 and motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 16-17308

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.