NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        NOV 7 2016
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



 FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD,                             No.    14-16264

                  Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:13-cv-04535-EJD

   v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
 GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING,
 INC.; et al.,

                  Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                    Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted October 25, 2016**

Before:       LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

        Fareed Sepehry-Fard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his quiet title action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.


        *
             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).
Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 

, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Sepehry-Fard’s action for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction because Sepehry-Fard failed to allege facts sufficient to

show any violation of federal law or diversity of citizenship in his complaint. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); Yokeno v. Mafnas, 

, 807-08 (9th Cir.

1992) (analyzing whether plaintiff’s complaint presented a “substantial federal

question”); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp., 

, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2004)

(addressing diversity of citizenship under § 1332).

      We do not consider any claims that Sepehry-Fard did not properly raise

before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 

, 985 n.2 (9th Cir.

2009).

      Sepehry-Fard’s contentions that the district court violated his right to due

process are unpersuasive.

      In light of our disposition, we do not address the merits of Sepehry-Fard’s

claims.

      Sepehry-Fard’s pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.




                                          2                                    14-16264