RUIZ v. MARQUEZ (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-30No. No. 20-16962

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's judgment dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was affirmed because Ruiz failed to satisfy his burden of establishing jurisdiction.

Martin Moreno Ruiz filed a lawsuit that was dismissed by the district court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Ruiz argued that the court should have reconsidered its dismissal and claimed the court engaged in misconduct. The appellate court reviewed the case de novo and found that Ruiz bore the responsibility to establish that the court had jurisdiction over his case, but he failed to meet this burden.

The court noted that under federal rules and established precedent, the district court has an obligation to examine whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction, even if the plaintiff does not raise the issue. Because Ruiz did not provide any factual or legal foundation for subject matter jurisdiction, the district court properly dismissed the action. The appellate court also rejected Ruiz's motion for reconsideration as lacking any valid grounds and found his misconduct allegations without support.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Whether the plaintiff bore the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction
Whether the court abused its discretion by denying reconsideration
Whether the district court engaged in misconduct

Procedural posture

Ruiz appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Martin Moreno Ruiz appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Ruizs action because Ruiz 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).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ruizs motion for reconsideration because Ruiz failed to establish any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).

We reject as without merit Ruizs contention that the district court engaged in misconduct.

AFFIRMED.