Case ID: f-appx_685/html/0514-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Myhrna BLACK, FKA Myhrna Tenente, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nathan Todd YOUNG, Ninth Judicial District Court Judge; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15730
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 23, 2017
    Myhrna Black, Pro Se
    D. Randall Gilmer, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV—Office of the Nevada Attorney General (Las Vegas), Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Nathan Todd Young
    Caryn S. Tijsseling, Esquire, Attorney, Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellee Alfonso Tenente
    Holly S. Parker, Esquire, Attorney, Wayne Alan Shaffer, Esquire, Attorney, Laxalt & Nomura, Ltd., Reno, NV, for Defendants-Appellees Judy M. Sheldrew, Law Office of Karen L. Winters
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Myrhna Black, FKA Myhrna Tenente, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from the issuance of a subpoena in a Nevada state court proceeding. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Black’s constitutional claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 because those statutes do not provide a basis for civil liability. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding that §§ 241 and 242 do not provide a basis for civil liability).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Black’s state law claims after dismissing Black’s federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”); Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).

Contrary to Black’s contention, the district court properly denied defendants’ motions to dismiss as moot after dismissing the federal claims and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Black’s request (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied.

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