TIMOTHY KELLIS V. LEVI WILLARD, No. 18-36058 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TIMOTHY ANDREW KELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-36058 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
