JAMES CONSTANT V. SCHORR LAW

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES CONSTANT, No. 22-55097
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-08608-JFW-KES
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SCHORR LAW, A Professional Corporation
which acts as an Officer of the Court, a
Public Entity,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
James Constant appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
sua sponte his action arising out of a contract with a law firm. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
*
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).
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 Constant’s action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Constant 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); see also
Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 317-20 & n.9 (1981) (explaining that a
private attorney or public defender does not act under color of state law within the
meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is not a government official).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Constant’s
action without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to
amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.
2 22-55097