Faunce

MEMORANDUM **

David W. Faunce, a California prisoner and trust beneficiary, appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 19(b), his diversity action against trustee and investor defendants for damages, injunctive relief, and an accounting. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s determination under Rule 19 that dismissal is required because a person absent from the litigation is indispensable, Walsh v. Centeio, 692 F.2d 1239, 1242-43 (9th Cir.1982), and we affirm.

Faunce contends that joining his co-beneficiary brother, who is an Oregon resident, as a plaintiff, would not destroy diversity because not all defendants are from Oregon. The district court properly concluded that the addition of Faunce’s brother would destroy diversity jurisdiction because some defendants are Oregon citizens. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 ; Ruhrgas A.G. v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 , 579-80 n. 2, 119 S.Ct. 1563 , 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999) (section 1332 requires complete diversity).

Faunce concedes that his brother is a necessary party, but contends that he cannot pursue this action in…