Court Opinion

ID: 4465018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-12-17 21:00:28.992703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:34.191405
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 17 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TIMOTHY ANDREW KELLIS,                          No.    18-36058

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00081-BLW

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
LEVI WILLARD, Corporal/Property Officer
ISCC - individually and in their official
capacity,

                Defendant-Appellee,

and

HENRY ATENCIO; et al.,

                Defendants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Idaho
                   B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before:      WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Timothy Andrew Kellis, a Texas state prisoner formerly incarcerated in

Idaho, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th

Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213
F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Kellis’s action because Kellis failed to

allege facts sufficient to link defendant Willard to any constitutional violation. See

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth requirements

for supervisory liability); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009)

(conclusory allegations are not entitled to presumption of truth); Hebbe v. Pliler,

627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be

construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a

plausible claim for relief).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Kellis’s state law claims because Kellis failed to

state a federal claim. See Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821, 826 (9th Cir.

2001) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court may

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims once it

                                           2                                     18-36058
has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                          18-36058