Summary
holding the district court properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Bryant had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies; and amendment would be futile because the Railroad Retirement Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of appeals
Summary of this case from Anderson v. R.R. Ret. Bd.Opinion
No. 16-56333
05-31-2018
MARILYN BRYANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY AND BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION, Successor to Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and Santa Fe Pacific Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01267-DSF-JEM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TROTT and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Marilyn Bryant appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction her action alleging state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Ass'n of Am. Med. Colleges v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bryant's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Bryant failed to exhaust her claim as required under the Railroad Retirement Act. 45 U.S.C. § 355(b) ("The Board is authorized and directed to make findings of fact with respect to any claim for benefits and to make decisions as to the right of any claimant to benefits."); id. § 355(c)(7) ("Any issue determinable pursuant to this subsection and subsection (f) of this section shall not be determined in any manner other than pursuant to this subsection and subsection (f) of this section.").
The district court properly dismissed without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. GPA Grp., Ltd., 877 F.2d 793, 801 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that the district court properly determined amendment was futile because allegations failed to establish jurisdiction).
Contrary to Bryant's contention, the district court did not assess costs.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.