SUKIT KUMVACHIRAPITAG V. BARACK OBAMA, No. 14-17084 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 25 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUKIT KUMVACHIRAPITAG, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 14-17084 D.C. No. 4:14-cv-03182-KAW v. MEMORANDUM* BARACK OBAMA, U.S. President, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted September 21, 2015*** Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges. Sukit Kumvachirapitag appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** Kumvachirapitag consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the action because Kumvachirapitag failed to allege claims under federal law or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); see also Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subjectmatter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party”); Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls., 217 F.3d at 778-79 (the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it). 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) (per curiam). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 14-17084

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.