NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM J. MYERS, Jr., No. 22-16379
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00631-SMM-MTM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NEIL V. WAKE, Senior United States
District Judge,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
William J. Myers, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging various claims
arising out of two prior actions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Myers’s action because Myers failed to
establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better
Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (explaining that an action may be dismissed for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction where the alleged federal claim is “wholly
insubstantial and frivolous” or “otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to
involve a federal controversy” (citations omitted)); Franklin v. State of Or., State
Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (recognizing that a district court
may dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction, even before issuing a
summons); see also Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978) (explaining that
judges are immune for their judicial acts, even if “alleged to have been done
maliciously or corruptly,” unless taken in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction”).
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, we do not consider Myers’s contentions regarding the merits of his
claims.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Myers’s amended
complaint, which was filed after the action was dismissed, or by allegedly rejecting
Myers’s motion for reconsideration after having previously instructed the clerk to
reject any further filings in the case, except in furtherance of an appeal. See Ready
Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth
2 22-16379
standard of review and explaining that federal district courts have the “inherent
power to control their docket” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Myers’s contentions that the district
court was biased against him, acted improperly, or denied him due process.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 22-16379