Opinion
21-55317
03-25-2022
JONATHAN AMBROSE VANLOAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATION OF ISLAM; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for No. 2:20-cv-00127-GW-MRW the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Jonathan Ambrose VanLoan appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed VanLoan's action because VanLoan's claims are too frivolous and unsubstantial to invoke subject matter jurisdiction. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536 (1974) ("Over the years this Court has repeatedly held that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit . . . ."); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6 (9th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) ("A paid complaint that is 'obviously frivolous' does not confer federal subject matter jurisdiction[.]").
AFFIRMED.