Martin Ruiz v. Miguel Marquez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN MORENO RUIZ, No. 20-16962
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01094-DWL-
ESW
v.
MIGUEL MARQUEZ MARQUEZ, MEMORANDUM*
Guanajuato State Governor; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Martin Moreno Ruiz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team
Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). 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).
The district court properly dismissed Ruiz’s action because Ruiz failed to
satisfy his burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Ashoff v. City of
Ukiah, 130 F.3d 409, 410 (9th Cir. 1997) (the plaintiff has the burden of
establishing subject matter jurisdiction); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.”); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir.
2004) (the court is obligated to consider sua sponte whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ruiz’s motion for
reconsideration because Ruiz failed to establish any basis for such relief. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th
Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
We reject as without merit Ruiz’s contention that the district court engaged
in misconduct.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-16962