NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHAD JAMES ROMINE, No. 16-15218
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00401-GEB-
KJN
v.
BIG O TIRES CORPORATE MEMORANDUM*
HEADQUARTERS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Chad James Romine appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging various claims arising from the repair of his car. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), Rundgren v. Wash.
*
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).
Mut. Bank, FA, 760 F.3d 1056, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2014), and we may affirm on any
ground supported by the record, Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 965 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court dismissed Romine’s federal claims for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. We affirm the dismissal of these claims on the alternate basis
that Romine failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings
are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient
to state a plausible claim for relief); Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550,
557 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements of a claim under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d
1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986) (a claim under 42 U.C.S. § 1983 requires that
defendants acted under the color of state law); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089,
1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 do not provide a basis for civil
liability).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Romine’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3) (permitting district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if it has
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction); Costanich v. Dep’t of
Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).
2 16-15218
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Romine’s first
amended complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile.
See Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal of a pro
se complaint without leave to amend is proper “if it is absolutely clear that the
deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)); Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719,
725 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard of review).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 16-15218