Opinion
No. 07-16638.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed April 21, 2008.
David Tomasello, Tonopah, AZ, pro se.
Steven Greogry Biddle, Esq., Emily M. Craiger, Esq., Littler Mendelson, P.C., Denise Troy, Esq., Timothy J. Thomason, Esq., Mariscal Weeks McIntyre Friedlander, PA, John R. Cunningham, Esq., Jennings Haug Cunningham, LLP, Donald K. Wilson, Jr., Esq., Broening Oberg Woods Wilson Cass, Kendall D. Steele, Esq., Jardine, Baker, Hickman Houston, Richard F. Albrecht, Esq., Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, James A. Teilborg, U.S. District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-02078-JAT.
Before: B. FLETCHER, FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
This is an appeal from the district court's dismissal of appellant's civil action for failure state a claim sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction and failure to establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The court has received and reviewed appellant's response to the court's February 14, 2008 order to show cause and the responses and reply thereto. A review of the record and these responses indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (stating standard).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
All pending motions are denied as moot.