*1 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. *2 Crum v. Circus Circus Enters. , 231 F.3d 1129, 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 , 973 F.2d 803, 807-08 (9th Cir. 1992) (analyzing whether plaintiff’s complaint presented a “substantial federal question”); Kuntz v. Lamar Corp. , 385 F.3d 1177, 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 , 587 F.3d 983, 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
[*] 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).