Donnell Bledsoe v. San Joaquin County Superior Court

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 28 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DONNELL BLEDSOE, No. 23-15805 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00158-DAD-KJN v. MEMORANDUM* SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT; GEORGE ABDULLAH, San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge; SPENCER SINCLAIR, Attorney for Pearlie Townes; JOHN M. HARRIS, Lawyer for San Joaquin County Superior Court, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 26, 2024** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Donnell Bledsoe 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 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3). Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Bledsoe’s action because Bledsoe failed to satisfy his burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Ashoff v. City of Ukiah, 130 F.3d 409, 410 (9th Cir. 1997) (the plaintiff has the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court is obligated to consider sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 23-15805