Maurice King v. Bank of America

MEMORANDUM

Maurice Simeon King appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an unlawful taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , We review de novo, Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed King’s action because King failed to estab lish federal subject matter jurisdiction over his claim. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 , 114 S.Ct. 1673 , 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) (party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving federal jurisdiction); Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008) (Fifth Amendment only applies to the federal government); see also Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 , 66 S.Ct. 773 , 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946) (explaining that an action my be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the alleged federal claim clearly appears to be “wholly insubstantial- and frivolous”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying King’s motions for appointment of counsel because King failed to demonstrate…