McMahon
McMahon v. Pier 39
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Patrick McMahon appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we review de novo, Hicks v. Small, 69 F.3d 967, 969 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.
The district court properly determined that it lacked diversity jurisdiction because McMahon failed to carry his burden of proving complete diversity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1); Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir.2001). In particular, McMahon, a Nevada citizen, failed to rebut the evidence submitted by defendant Martha McMahon that she also was a citizen of Nevada at the time the complaint was filed. See id. at 857 (explaining that for diversity purposes, citizenship is determined by domicile and not residency).
The district court properly determined that McMahon did not state an actionable Clayton Act claim, his only federal cause of action. See Hicks, 69 F.3d at 969 (affirming Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal where federal claim failed). The facts McMahon alleged in the amended complaint did not set forth an anti-trust injury as required under…