Craig Eugene Ramsell; Monnie Ramsell v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as trustee for: trustee of Banc of America Mortgage…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRAIG EUGENE RAMSELL; MONNIE
RAMSELL,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as trustee
for: trustee of Banc of America Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2003-K;
BANC OF AMERICA MORTGAGE
SECURITIES INCORPORATED PASS-
THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2003-K TRUST; 50 BRONCO DRIVE,
SEDONA, AZ; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16405
D.C. No. 3:22-cv-08119-DWL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2023 **
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
* 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
OCT 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16405
Craig Eugene Ramsell and Monnie Ramsell appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their action concerning ownership of real property in
Arizona. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
district court’s determination that it lacked 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 the Ramsells’ action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because the Ramsells failed to allege a federal question or
diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); 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. v. United States, 217 F.3d
770, 778-79 (9th Cir. 2000) (the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of
establishing it); see also Guzman v. Polaris Indus. Inc., 49 F.4th 1308, 1313 (9th
Cir. 2022) (“Equitable jurisdiction is distinct from subject matter jurisdiction,
although both are required for a federal court to hear the merits of an equitable
claim.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --