Jonathan Ambrose Vanloan v. Nation of Islam;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONATHAN AMBROSE VANLOAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NATION OF ISLAM; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-55317
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00127-GW-MRW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Jonathan Ambrose VanLoan appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112
(9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
* 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
MAR 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-55317
The district court properly dismissed VanLoan’s action because VanLoan’s
claims are too frivolous and unsubstantial to invoke subject matter jurisdiction.
See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536 (1974) (“Over the years this Court has
repeatedly held that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims
otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to
be absolutely devoid of merit . . . .”); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6
(9th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319
(1989) (“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal
subject matter jurisdiction[.]”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --