Jairo Pedroza v. Alberto Gonzalez ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIRO BRAVO PEDROZA, No. 11-55784
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-01766-LAB-
WVG
v.
ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry Alan Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jairo Bravo Pedroza appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of
Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 288 (1971), alleging Fifth Amendment and
*
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).
malicious prosecution claims in connection with defendants’ decision to
commence removal proceedings against him and his detention incident to those
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Vestron, Inc. v. Home Box Office
Inc., 839 F.2d 1380, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Pedroza’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). See Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482-88 (1999).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pedroza leave to
amend because further amendment would have been futile in light of the
jurisdictional bar. See L.A. Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. City of Oakland, 717 F.2d
470, 473 (9th Cir. 1983) (setting forth standard of review).
The district court properly declined to file the post-judgment motions
Pedroza submitted after filing his notice of appeal. See Vroman v. United States,
997 F.2d 627 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).
We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-55784