MEMORANDUM **
Gary James Sroka appeals pro se from the district courts order affirming the bankruptcy courts order dismissing Srokas adversary proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). We review de novo a district courts decision on appeal from the bankruptcy court, and apply the same standard of review the district court applied to the bankruptcy courts decision. Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990). We affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly dismissed Srokas adversary proceeding for lack of standing because Srokas claims were property of the bankruptcy estate at the time he filed his adversary proceeding, and therefore could only be brought by the trustee. See 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (after commencement of a bankruptcy case, any legal interests of the debtor, including property interests, belongs to the bankruptcy estate); Cusano v. Klein, 264 F.3d 936, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that if a debtor fails to schedule a legal claim in a proper manner, that claim belongs to the bankruptcy estate).
The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Srokas first amended complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.