Chris Ward Kline v. Ram Koppaka;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRIS WARD KLINE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RAM KOPPAKA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16559
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-07118-VC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Chris Ward Kline appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging state law claims against the Department of Health
and Human Services. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P.
* 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
FEB 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-16559
12(b)(1). Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kline’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Kline failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) prior to filing suit. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2675(a) (setting forth FTCA’s administrative exhaustion requirement); McNeil v.
United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (the FTCA bars a claimant from bringing
suit in federal court unless the claimant has first exhausted administrative
remedies).
The district court did not err in substituting in the United States as a
defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1) (“Upon certification by the Attorney
General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or
employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose . . . the United
States shall be substituted as the party defendant.”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Kline’s contentions of misconduct
by the Attorney General’s office.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --