JONATHAN D. COBB, Sr.; WALTER ARLEN ST. CLAIR v. Ernest Brede;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28**
U.S.C. § 636(c).
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONATHAN D. COBB, Sr.;
WALTER ARLEN ST. CLAIR,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ERNEST BREDE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15265
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-03907-MEJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted April 16, 2013***
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jonathan D. Cobb, Sr., and Walter Arlen St. Clair appeal pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction their
FILED
APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-15265 2
action alleging that defendants committed acts of conspiracy, fraud, “religious
fraud,” mail and wire fraud, defamation and collusion. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Peralta v. Hispanic Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d
1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because the complaint does
not allege facts to support federal question or diversity jurisdiction. See id. (“In
civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally conferred upon federal district
courts either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal question
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.”); Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc., 936 F.2d 417, 421 (9th
Cir. 1991) (recognizing that, if the parties fail to raise the issue of subject matter
jurisdiction, the court must raise it sua sponte); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a
Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (“Dismissal for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the federal claim is proper only when the
claim is ‘so insubstantial, implausible, . . ., or otherwise completely devoid of merit
as not to involve a federal controversy.’” (citation omitted)). Even if plaintiffs’
complaint could be construed to contain a RICO claim, plaintiffs failed to allege
any injury to a business or property interest. See Diaz v. Gates, 420 F.3d 897, 900
(9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (per curiam) (to state a claim under RICO, the plaintiff
must allege “harm to a specific business or property interest”).

-- 2 of 3 --

12-15265 3
Because the district court did not reach the merits of the case due to its sua
sponte dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, we do not consider
plaintiffs’ contentions concerning the need for additional discovery.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --