JOHN LEMONS, SR. V. DIV OF CHILD SUPPORT DATA GATH, No. 10-35839 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 03 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN E. LEMONS, No. 10-35839 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01129-JCC v. MEMORANDUM* DIV OF CHILD SUPPORT DATA GATHERING UNIT; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2014** Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. John E. Lemons appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action arising from a paternity dispute and resulting tax refund offset for failure to pay child support. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). novo. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Lemons’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Lemons failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1); Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332). To the extent that Lemons is seeking any relief in his October 21, 2013 motion other than reinstatement of this appeal, his motion is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 10-35839

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.