Case Name: Burk N. ASHFORD, aka California Sun, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alex PADILLA, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-24
Citations: 678 F. App'x 557
Docket Number: No. 15-17417
Parties: Burk N. ASHFORD, aka California Sun, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alex PADILLA, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 557–557

Head Matter:
Burk N. ASHFORD, aka California Sun, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alex PADILLA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-17417
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 24, 2017
Burk N. Ashford, Pro Se
George Waters, AGCA-Offiee of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Burk N. Ashford, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising from his California trademark renewal application. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ashford's due process claim because Ash-ford failed to allege facts sufficient to establish a deprivation of a constitutionally protected property interest. See Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 913 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth elements of a procedural due process claim).
To the extent that Ashford claimed he was entitled to trademark renewal under California law, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988)) (where all federal claims are eliminated before trial, courts generally should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims); Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Ashford's request for judicial notice and motion for sanctions, filed on October 27, 2016, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.