22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T518,MEMORANDUM Christian Joubert appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging state law claims arising from the death of his mother. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082,1086 (9th Cir.2008). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal without leave to amend. Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Joubert’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Joubert alleged neither a federal question nor complete diversity between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1333-1332 . The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Joubert’s action without leave to amend after concluding that amendment would be futile. See Simon v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir.2008) (“[C]ourts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.”) Joubert’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T54f,

MEMORANDUM

Christian Joubert appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging state law claims arising from the death of his mother. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082,1086 (9th Cir.2008). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal without leave to amend. Gordon v. City of Oakland, 627 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Joubert’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Joubert alleged neither a federal question nor complete diversity between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1333-1332 .

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Joubert’s action without leave to amend after concluding that amendment would be futile. See Simon v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir.2008) (“[C]ourts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.”)

Joubert’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.