Robinson v. State of Washington Department of Corrections , 464 F. App'x 676 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 03 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BARBARA A. STUART ROBINSON,                      No. 11-35025
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:10-cv-05652-RBL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    STATE OF WASHINGTON
    DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 19, 2011 **
    Before:        GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    Barbara A. Stuart Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing her action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    F.3d 952, 955 (9th Cir. 2001). 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
    .”); see also Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 
    129 S. Ct. 1262
    , 1272 (2009) (explaining that § 1331 confers jurisdiction over civil actions
    ‘arising under’ federal law and that an action ‘arises under’ federal law only where
    the plaintiff’s statement of the claim shows that the claim is based on federal law
    (citations omitted)).
    We do not consider issues raised by Robinson for the first time on appeal.
    See Janes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 
    279 F.3d 883
    , 887-88 (9th Cir. 2002).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     11-35025
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-35025

Citation Numbers: 464 F. App'x 676

Judges: Goodwin, Wallace, McKeown

Filed Date: 1/3/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024