Opinion
22-16106
07-05-2023
HARRY J. WILLIBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SERGEY BRIN; LARRY PAGE; PICHAI SUNDARARAJAN, AKA Sundar Pichai; ERIC SCHMIDT, DBA Alphabet, Inc; GOOGLE LLC; YOUTUBE, LLC, DBA Blogger, DBA Google Adsense; MARK ZUCKERBERG; JEFF BEZOS, DBA Amazon.com, Inc.; ALPHABET HOLDING CORPORATION; FACEBOOK, INC.; AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted June 26, 2023[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 3:22-cv-01271-VC for the Northern District of California Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Harry J. Williby appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action arising from a purported antitrust conspiracy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williby's action because Williby failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (explaining that an action may be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where the alleged federal claim is "wholly insubstantial and frivolous" (citations omitted)); Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981) (recognizing that a district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction).
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).