N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EM M ANUEL R O Y ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. PIONEER

HUM A N SER VIC ES; SPOKANE RESIDENTIAL REENTR Y C ENTER ; DAN SIGLER ; C ARLOS SOLORZA; SUSAN JOHNSONC ONNOR S, De fe nda

nts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-36079 D.C . No. 2:20-c v-00235-R M P
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington R osa nna M a louf Pe te rson, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h

22, 2022 **
B e fore : WALLAC E , FER NANDEZ, a

n d SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED MAR 22 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

n d is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Em

m anue l R oy

a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd its orde r de ny ing re m and of his a c tion a ga inst Pione e r Hum an Se rvic e s, Spoka ne R e side ntia l R e e ntry

C e nte r, Dan Sigle r, C a

rlos Solorz a , a

nd Susa n Johnson-C o nnors (he re a fte r “ de fe nda nts” ) to the Spoka

ne C ounty

Supe rior C ourt in the State of W a shington. The distric t c ourt de t e rm i ne d tha t it ha d fe de ra l que stion subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1331. W e re ve rse and
re m and. R oy ’ s c a use of a c tion for “ Dam a g e s for B re a c h of Sta tutory Duty ” is a

sta te la w tort c la im
. Se e Range r Ins. C o. v . Pie rc e C

ounty , 192 P.3d 886, 889 (W a sh. 2008); E st. of Te mple ton e

x re l. Te mple ton v . Daffe rn , 990 P.2d 968, 972 (Wa sh. C t. App. 2000). W

hile the c a

use of a c tion involve s a

fe de ra l issuebe c a

use its
re solution re quire s c onside ration of whe the r 18 U.S.C . § 3624 im p ose d a duty

on de fe nda n ts a nd whe the r de fe n da

nts bre a c he d

tha t duty , the fe de ra l issuedoe s not
m e e t the re quire m e nts for thee x e rc ise of fe de ra l que s tion jurisdic tion ove r a sta te la w c la im
. Se e G unn v . Minton , 568 U.S. 251, 258, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1065, 185 L. Ed. 2d 72 (2013); Saldana v . Gle nhav e n He a lthc are LLC , __ F.4th __, __, No. 20-56194, 2022 W

L 518989 a

t *6 (9th C ir. Fe b. 22, 2022). The fe d e ra l issue is “ ne c e s sa

rily ra ise d ” and “ a c tua lly

dispute d,” but it is not “ substa ntia l” or

“ c a pa ble of re solution in fe de ra l c ourt without disrupting the fe d e ra l-sta

te ba la nc e
2 0
- 3 6 0 7 9 2a

pprove d by C ongre ss.” Se e Gunn , 568 U.S. a t 258, 133 S. C t. at

1065; Empire He althc h oic eAssuranc e

, Inc . v . Mc Ve igh, 547 U.S. 677, 683, 700–01, 126 S. C t. 2121, 2127, 2137, 165 L. Ed. 2d 131 (2006). The fa c e of R oy ’ s c om

p la int showe d tha

t he wa s a sse rting sta

te la w c la im s for “ Dam a g e s for R e ta lia

tion” and “ Dam a ge s for Fa ilure to Tra i n & Supe rvise - R e sponde at Supe rior,” not 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c la im s. Se e C ate rpillar Inc . v . W illiams , 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987); Easton v . C

rossland Mortg. C

o rp. , 114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th C ir. 1997) (pe r c uriam ). While R oy ’ s c a

use of a c t ion wa s e ntitle d “ R e ta lia tion,” he a lle ge d the e le m e nts of
ne glige nc e . Se e Range r Ins. C o. , 192 P.3d a

t 889. Additiona

lly , he a lle g e d

c a use s of a c tion unde r W a shington la w for re sponde at supe rior a nd ne glige nt tra ining a

nd supe rvision. Se e Thompson v . Ev e re tt C linic , 860 P.2d 1054, 1056–57 (W a sh. C t. App. 1993) (re sponde at supe rior); Ev ans v . Tac oma Sc h. Dist. N o. 10 , 380 P.3d 553, 564 (W a sh. C t. App. 2016) (ne glige nt tra ining a nd supe rvision). B e c a use the re wa s no fe de ra l que stion jurisdiction ba s e d on R oy ’ s c a use s of
a c tion for bre a c h of sta

tutory duty , re ta lia

tion, or re sponde at supe rior, the distric t
c ourt did not ha

ve supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r R oy ’ s re m a ining sta te la w

2 0
- 3 6 0 7 9 3c la im s. Se e28 U.S.C . § 1367(a).

The judgm e nt is RE V E RSE D and the c a se RE M A NDE D to the distric t
c ourt with instructions to re m and the c a se to the Spoka ne C ounty

Supe rior C ourt in the State of W a shington.

2 0
- 3 6 0 7 9 4