Janet C. Howell v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, & 50 States

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JANET C. HOWELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
LETICIA LAGERA; SABADO, FRANCO
AND ARUCAN FAMILY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, & 50
States,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-16466
D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00285-JAO-KJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Jill Otake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
* 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 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16466
Janet C. Howell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
sua sponte her action alleging various claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082,
1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Howell’s action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Howell failed to allege any violation of
federal law or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); Kuntz v.
Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004) (addressing diversity of
citizenship under § 1332); Wander v. Kaus, 304 F.3d 856, 858-59 (9th Cir. 2002)
(discussing requirements for federal question jurisdiction under § 1331).
Howell’s motion for appointment of counsel, set forth in the opening brief,
is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --