Opinion
No. 09-35658.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed April 19, 2010.
Maximus T. Englerius, Seattle, WA, pro se.
Erin Rebecca Chlopak, Federal Election Commission, Kevin Deeley, Esquire, Federal Election Commission, Thomasenia P. Duncan, Esquire, David Brett Kolker, Associate General Counsel, Benjamin A. Streeter, III, Esquire, Federal Election Commission, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Kicardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00172-RSM.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Maximus T. Englerius appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging that the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") permitted the major political parties to manipulate the presidential debates to exclude third-party candidates. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Amerco v. NLRB, 458 F.3d 883, 886 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Englerius's action because he did not file his complaint in the proper forum or within 60 days of the FEC's dismissal of his administrative complaint. See 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a)(8) (explaining the exhaustion procedure before a private party can bring a federal action to enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act).
Englerius's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.