T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

* * T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J O H N C A R L W E B B E R , J r ., P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. J E R E M Y G R I F F I N , i n hi s of f i c i a l a nd in d iv idu a l c ap a c ity ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 35558 D. C . No . 3 : 0 7 - c v - 0 1 6 7 5 - KI ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon G a rrM . K i ng, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. John C ar lW ebber, Jr . appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ctcourt ’ s order d is m is s in g w ith p r e

ju d ic e h is s ta te a n df

e d e r a l la w c la im s a g a in s t c e rta in de f e nda nt s a nd i t s s um m a ryj udgm e nton the s e c l a i m s a ga i ns tthe r e m a i ni ng 

# FI LED OC T 29 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 35558 2 de f e nda nt s . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo the d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f c la im s a n dits g r a n t o f

s u m m a ryju d g m e n t, B arnet t v. C e ntoni , 3 1 F. 3 d8 1 3 , 8 1 5 - 1 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) . W e a f f i rm. Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yd i s mi s s e dW e b b e r ’ s 4 2 U . S. C. § 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms a ga i ns tc e rt a i n pr i va t e pa rt i e s ( the “ I ndi vi dua l D e f e nda nt s ” ) f

ora l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons of the F ou rth, F i fth, S i xth, S eventh, and F ou rt ee nth A m endm ent s bec ause they w e r e n o t a c tin g u n d e rc o lo ro f s ta te la w . Se e P r ic e v . S ta te o f H a w a ii , 939 F . 2d 702, 707- 08 ( 9th C i r . 1991) ( pr i va t e pa rt i e s do notge ne r a l l ya c tunde rc ol orof s ta te la w f

o r§ 1 9 8 3 p u rp o s e s ) ; Iv eyv. B d. of R egent s of the U ni v. of A laska , 673 F . 2d 266, 268 ( 9th C i r . 1982) (“ V ague and con cl usory a l l egat i on s of off i ci al part i ci pat i on i n ci vi l ri gh t s vi ol at i on s are no tsuff i ci ent ” t o w i thst and d i sm i ss al ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d W e bbe r ’ s c l a i m f ora l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons of the R ac ket ee r I nfl uenced and C orruptO rgani za t i on s A ctagai nstthe Indi vi du al D e f e nda nt s be c aus e the yw e r e nota l l e ge d t o pa rt i c i pa t e i n apa tt e rn of r a c ke t e e r i ng a c tiv ity . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 6 1 ( 1 ) ( d e f in in g r a c k e te e r in g a c tiv ity ) . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yd i s mi s s e dW e b b e r ’ s r e ma i n i n g s t a t e l a w c l a i ms ag ai n stth e In d i v i d u al D efen d an t s b ecau se i th add i scret i o n n o tt o ex erci se supp l em ent al j uri sdi ct i on ov erthem af t erdi sm i ss i ng al l of W ebber’ s f eder al l aw c la im s a g a in s t th e I n d iv idu a l D e f e n d a n ts . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 7 ( c ) ( 3 ) ; see a l so09- 35558 3 A te l Fi n. C or p. v . Q uake rC oal

C o. , 3 2 1 F. 3 d9 2 4 , 9 2 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( c o u rt m a ya f

f irm o n d if

f e r e n t g r o u n dth a n th a t r e lie dup o n b yd is tr ic t c o u rt) . T he di stri ctcourtal so prop er l y di sm i ss ed W ebber’ s s t at e and fe dera l l aw c l a i m s a ga i ns tde f

e nda nt s a f

f i l i a t e d w i th the O r e gon W a t e rR e s our c e s D e pa rtm e nt ( th e “S ta te D e f

e n d a n ts ” ) o n c la im p r e c lu s io n g r o u n d s b e c au s e th e r e w a s p r iv ity b e tw e e n th e S ta te D e f

e n d a n ts a n dth e p a rtya g a in s t w h o m W e b b e rp r e v io u s ly l i t i ga t e d— orc oul d ha ve j oi ne d— c l a i m s a r i s i ng f r om the s a m e f

a c tua l tr a ns a c t i on in ap r io ra d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e e d in g . Se e Mi l le rv . C ount yof Santa Cr uz , 39 F . 3d 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) ( f e d e r a l c o u rts g iv e p r e c lu s iv e e f f e c t to as ta te a d m in is tr a tiv e la w p r o c e e d in g th a t “m e e ts th e s ta te ’s o w n c r ite r ian e c e s s a ryto re q u ire a co u rt o f th at state to g iv e p re clu siv e e ff ec t t o th e s tate ag en cy ’s d e c is io n s ” ) ; see a l

so D ’ A m i c o exr e l. T

r ac e yv . E l l i nw ood , 14 9 P . 3d 27 7, 28 1 (O r. 2006) ( “ P r i vi tyi nc l ude s . . . thos e w hos e i nt e r e s t s a r e r e pr e s e nt e d byapa rtyt o the ac t i on [. ] ”) ; D rew s v. EB I C o s. , 7 9 5 P .2 d5 3 1 , 5 3 5 ( O r . 1 9 9 0 ) ( s e ttin g f o rth e le m e n ts o f

O r e g o n c la im p r e c lu s io n la w ) . W ebber’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. A FFI R M ED .