MICHAEL INGRAM EL V. JOE CRAIL, No. 19-16866 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 15 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL INGRAM EL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-16866 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01976-MCE-EFB MEMORANDUM* JOE CRAIL; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 8, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 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 * 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). 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. WarnerLambert 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. 2 19-16866

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.