NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARIEL BAREL, personal representative of No. 15-15650
Joseph Piovo; DONNA KARA, personal
representative of Joseph Piovo, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01922-APG-
GWF
Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT STONE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Eugene Piovo, through personal representatives Ariel Barel and
Donna Kara, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing Piovo’s
action alleging a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1982. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 546
F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Piovo’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Piovo did not present a federal question on the face of
his amended complaint. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475
(1998) (plaintiff must present a federal question on the face of a properly pleaded
complaint); see also Phiffer v. Proud Parrot Motor Hotel, Inc., 648 F.2d 548, 551
(9th Cir. 1980) (setting forth elements of a prima facie case under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1982).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Piovo’s action
without granting further leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See
Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195, 1200 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard
of review and factors for a district court to consider in determining whether to
grant leave to amend).
We reject as unsupported by the record Piovo’s contentions that the district
court was biased, failed to comply with court rules, erred in staying discovery, held
Piovo’s pleadings to an improper standard, or otherwise erred in its analysis of
2 15-15650
Piovo’s pleadings.
Piovo’s request for judicial notice, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
Piovo’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 59) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15650