Case Name: Lana K. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MADERA SUPERIOR COURT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-23
Citations: 671 F. App'x 431
Docket Number: No. 15-15188
Parties: Lana K. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MADERA SUPERIOR COURT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 431–432

Head Matter:
Lana K. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MADERA SUPERIOR COURT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15188
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted November 16, 2016
Filed November 23, 2016
Lana K. Williams, Pro Se.
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, 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
Lana K. Williams appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging claims arising from state court probate proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Williams' claims regarding the state probate proceedings because, under the probate exception, federal courts lack jurisdiction over probate matters. See Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311-12, 126 S.Ct. 1735, 164 L.Ed.2d 480 (2006).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Williams' state law malpractice and fraud claims because Williams failed to state a federal claim. See Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review; "[a] court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.