*1 Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
R. Sorrels appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging state law claims related to foreclosure proceedings. We review de novo questions of our own jurisdiction. Hunt v. Imperial Merchant *2 Servs., Inc. , 560 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2009).
Because the foreclosure sale of the property has already been completed, this court cannot grant the relief Sorrels requests and we dismiss the appeal as moot. See Vegas Diamond Props., LLC v. FDIC , 669 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he sale of the real properties prevents this Court from granting the requested relief and accordingly renders this appeal moot.”); Am. Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Baker , 22 F.3d 880, 896 (9th Cir. 1994) (a case is moot when there is no longer a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted).
DISMISSED.
2 16-35007
[*] 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).