NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IQBAL ASHRAF, No. 20-56320
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-08506-JWH-AS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RELIANCE MOTORS, LLC, Managing
Member of Reliance Motors, LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John W. Holcomb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Iqbal Ashraf appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
action alleging various federal and state law claims related to a foreclosure sale.
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). Colony Cove
*
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).
Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ashraf’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Ashraf failed to allege a federal question or complete
diversity of citizenship in his complaint. See 28 U.S.C §§ 1331, 1332; Rivet v.
Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (to establish jurisdiction under
§ 1331, a federal question must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly
pleaded complaint” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Caterpillar
Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996) (§ 1332 applies only when “the citizenship of
each plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Ashraf’s
complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to
amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
We reject as without merit Ashraf’s contentions that the district court judge
was biased against him and violated his constitutional rights.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
2 20-56320
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
Ashraf’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
Ashraf’s motion for default judgment (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-56320
Iqbal Ashraf v. Reliance Motors, LLC
Combined Opinion