NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

MAR 25 2022

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JONATHAN AMBROSE VANLOAN, No. 21-55317

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00127-GW-MRW

v.

MEMORANDUM*

NATION OF ISLAM; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Jonathan Ambrose VanLoan appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112

(9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

* 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). The district court properly dismissed VanLoan’s action because VanLoan’s

claims are too frivolous and unsubstantial to invoke subject matter jurisdiction.

See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536 (1974) (“Over the years this Court has

repeatedly held that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims

otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to

be absolutely devoid of merit . . . .”); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 n.6

(9th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319

(1989) (“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer federal

subject matter jurisdiction[.]”).

AFFIRMED.

2 21-55317