Neil Johnson v. Comfort Residential Partners

MEMORANDUM

Neil M. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action challenging construction defects in his now-foreclosed home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 385 F.3d 1177 , 1181 n. 6 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. First, the court lacked diversity jurisdiction because Johnson and several of the defendants are citizens of Nevada. See id. at 1181 (requiring complete diversity of citizenship). Second, the court lacked federal question jurisdiction because Johnson’s state law claims neither included a federal right or immunity as an essential element nor raised a substantial federal issue. See Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086-87 (9th Cir.2009) (requirements of federal question jurisdiction). Finally, Johnson failed to establish that the federal statutes cited in his complaint served as a source of any substantive federal right to file a civil action. See Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 575-76 , 99 S.Ct. 2479 , 61 L.Ed.2d 82 (1979) (setting forth…