Neil M. Johnson v. Comfort Residential Partners, LLC;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NEIL M. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMFORT RESIDENTIAL PARTNERS,
LLC; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-15459
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00731-LRH-
RAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Neil M. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action challenging construction defects in his now-foreclosed home. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Kuntz v. Lamar Corp.,
FILED
JAN 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-15459 2
385 F.3d 1177, 1181 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. First, the court lacked diversity jurisdiction because Johnson
and several of the defendants are citizens of Nevada. See id. at 1181 (requiring
complete diversity of citizenship). Second, the court lacked federal question
jurisdiction because Johnson’s state law claims neither included a federal right or
immunity as an essential element nor raised a substantial federal issue. See
Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086-87
(9th Cir. 2009) (requirements of federal question jurisdiction). Finally, Johnson
failed to establish that the federal statutes cited in his complaint served as a source
of any substantive federal right to file a civil action. See Touche Ross & Co. v.
Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 575-76 (1979) (setting forth factors to determine if
federal criminal statutes provide implied right to file civil claim); Anderson v.
Warner, 451 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2006) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not grant a
substantive right, but only a way to vindicate federal rights elsewhere conferred).
Johnson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Defendants’ motion for judicial notice is granted.
Johnson’s pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --