
    Michael S. YELLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-16344
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 24, 2016
    Michael S. Yellen, Hilo, HI, Pro Se.
    Deirdre Marie-Iha, Marissa Hime Iola-na Luning, AGHI — Office of the Hawaii Attorney General, Honolulu, HI.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael S. Yellen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action alleging violations of federal constitutional law and international law arising from the 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and Hawaii’s subsequent annexation by the United States. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Pakootas v. Tech Cominco Metals, Ltd., 646 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Yellen’s action because his claims presented non-justiciable political questions over which the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974, 980 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that “the presence of a political question deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction” and explaining that a non-justiciable political question is found when there is “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to amend. See McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding “[t]he district court did not err in denying leave to ámend because amendment would have been futile”).

In light of our disposition, we do not address the merits of Yelleris claims.

We reject as without merit Yelleris contention that he was entitled to discovery.

Yelleris expedited motion for injunctive relief and/or permanent injunction, filed on July 15,2016, is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     