NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAX LOUMENA, No. 15-17130
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:14-cv-05423-LHK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EVALINA BARTH,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Max Loumena appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his
motion for appointment of a guardian ad litem and subsequent dismissal of his civil
rights action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We dismiss this
appeal as moot.
*
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).
Approximately one month after Loumena filed this appeal, he turned 18
years of age and was no longer required to secure the appointment of a guardian ad
litem in order to pursue his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(1) (the capacity of an
individual to sue or be sued is determined by the law of the individual’s domicile);
Cal. Civ. P. Code § 372(a) (a minor must be represented in court proceedings by a
guardian ad litem or guardian or conservator of an estate (emphasis added)).
Accordingly, this appeal is moot because this court cannot grant effective relief
regarding the district court’s denial of Loumena’s motion to appoint a guardian ad
litem and the resulting dismissal of the action. See United States v. Tanoue, 94
F.3d 1342, 1344 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[A]n appeal must be dismissed as moot if an
event occurs while the appeal is pending that makes it impossible for the appellate
court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
Loumena’s request for a transfer to the Central District of California, raised
for the first time in his opening brief, is denied.
In light of our disposition, we do not consider Loumena’s arguments
regarding the merits of his claim.
DISMISSED.
2 15-17130