
    Jairo Bravo PEDROZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alberto R. GONZALEZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-55784.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
    
    Filed Nov. 27, 2012.
    Jairo Bravo Pedroza, Tutwiler, MS, pro se.
    Caroline J. Clark, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jairo Bravo Pedroza appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), alleging Fifth Amendment and malicious prosecution claims in connection with defendants’ decision to commence removal proceedings against him and his detention incident to those proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Vestron, Inc. v. Home Box Office Inc., 839 F.2d 1380, 1381 (9th Cir.1988). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Pedroza’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). See Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482-88, 119 S.Ct. 936, 142 L.Ed.2d 940 (1999).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pedroza leave to amend because further amendment would have been futile in light of the jurisdictional bar. See L.A. Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n v. City of Oakland, 717 F.2d 470, 478 (9th Cir.1988) (setting forth standard of review).

The district court properly declined to file the post-judgment motions Pedroza submitted after filing his notice of appeal. See United States v. Vroman, 997 F.2d 627 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam).

We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     