Susan Gonzales v. Gwen Rohrer
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUSAN A. GONZALES, No. 19-55391 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00241-GPC-KSC v. MEMORANDUM* GWEN GLEASON ROHRER, Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
We grant Gonzales’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Susan A. Gonzales appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging medical malpractice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject * 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). matter jurisdiction. Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir.
2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gonzales’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Gonzales failed to allege a federal claim or diversity of citizenship in her complaint. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (plaintiff must present a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded complaint).
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) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-55391