Case Name: Franklin R. MILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF REDDING; et al. Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-17
Citations: 177 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 05-16951
Parties: Franklin R. MILLS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF REDDING; et al. Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
Franklin R. MILLS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF REDDING; et al. Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-16951.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2006.
Decided April 17, 2006.
Franklin R. Mills, Shasta Lake, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Monique Grandaw, Brickwood Law Office, Redding, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SILVERMAN, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Franklin R. Mills appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action as frivolous under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mills's action alleging Shasta County Superior Court lacks jurisdiction over him because it is a legislatively-created tribunal. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1990) (dismissal may be based on lack of cognizable legal theories).
Mills's remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.