Rapheal G. Russell v. Myong Suk Mueller;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAPHEAL G. RUSSELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MYONG SUK MUELLER; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-35697
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00698-RSM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Rapheal G. Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action arising from a property
dispute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Rundgren v. Wash. Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2014). We
* 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).
FILED
DEC 26 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-35697
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Russell’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Russell failed to allege a federal question or jurisdiction
based on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (conferring jurisdiction on
district courts in “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States”); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a) applies only when the state citizenship of each plaintiff is diverse from
each defendant).
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).
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court because
they are not part of the record on appeal. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870,
874 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --