BRIDGETTE SMITH V. ARIZONA MEDICAL BOARD, No. 16-16824 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED MAY 31 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIDGETTE A. SMITH, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-16824 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02882-ESW v. MEMORANDUM* ARIZONA MEDICAL BOARD, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Eileen S. Willett, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted May 24, 2017*** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Bridgette A. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her action alleging claims against the Arizona Medical Board. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** Smith 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 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 Smith’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Smith failed to allege any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in her complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)(1); Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858 (9th Cir. 2002) (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). We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). AFFIRMED. 2 16-16824

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.