JACK ALFRED STRUBEL, Jr. v. Saif Corporation; Chemeketa Community College

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACK ALFRED STRUBEL, Jr.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SAIF CORPORATION; CHEMEKETA
COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-35363
D.C. No. 6:18-cv-00881-AA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Jack Alfred Strubel, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action regarding worker’s compensation benefits. 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) (dismissal for lack of
* 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
MAY 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-35363
subject matter jurisdiction); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Strubel’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Strubel failed to allege any violation of federal law or
diversity of citizenship in his second amended complaint. 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).
However, a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be
without prejudice. See Kelly v. Fleetwood Enters., Inc., 377 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th
Cir. 2004). We affirm the dismissal, and instruct the district court to amend the
judgment to reflect that the dismissal of this action is without prejudice.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions to amend the judgment.

-- 2 of 2 --