Donnell Bledsoe v. San Joaquin County Superior Court

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONNELL BLEDSOE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT; GEORGE ABDULLAH, San
Joaquin County Superior Court Judge;
SPENCER SINCLAIR, Attorney for Pearlie
Townes; JOHN M. HARRIS, Lawyer for San
Joaquin County Superior Court,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 23-15805
D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00158-DAD-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Donnell Bledsoe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction
* 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
MAR 28 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-15805
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3). Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741
F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bledsoe’s action because Bledsoe
failed to satisfy his burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Ashoff v.
City of Ukiah, 130 F.3d 409, 410 (9th Cir. 1997) (the plaintiff has the burden of
establishing subject matter jurisdiction); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must
dismiss the action.”); Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir.
2004) (the court is obligated to consider sua sponte whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction).
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). We do not
consider documents and facts not presented to the district court. See United States
v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --