Case Name: Myhrna BLACK, FKA Myhrna Tenente, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nathan Todd YOUNG, Ninth Judicial District Court Judge; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-23
Citations: 685 F. App'x 514
Docket Number: No. 16-15730
Parties: Myhrna BLACK, FKA Myhrna Tenente, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nathan Todd YOUNG, Ninth Judicial District Court Judge; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 685
Pages: 514–515

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.