Sukit Kumvachirapitag v. BARACK OBAMA, U.S. President

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUKIT KUMVACHIRAPITAG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BARACK OBAMA, U.S. President,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-17084
D.C. No. 4:14-cv-03182-KAW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 21, 2015***
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Sukit Kumvachirapitag appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction
FILED
SEP 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** Kumvachirapitag consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United
States, 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Kumvachirapitag
failed to allege claims under federal law or diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1332(a); see also Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)
(federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-
matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party”);
Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls., 217 F.3d at 778-79 (the party asserting jurisdiction bears
the burden of establishing it).
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)
(per curiam).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
14-17084 2

-- 2 of 2 --