RAPHEAL RUSSELL V. MYONG MUELLER, No. 17-35697 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 26 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAPHEAL G. RUSSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-35697 D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00698-RSM v. MEMORANDUM* MYONG SUK MUELLER; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Rapheal G. Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action arising from a property dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2014). We * 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). affirm. The district court properly dismissed Russell’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Russell failed to allege a federal question or jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (conferring jurisdiction on district courts in “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) applies only when the state citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from each defendant). 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). We do not consider documents not presented to the district court because they are not part of the record on appeal. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). AFFIRMED. 2 17-35697

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.