LANA WILLIAMS V. MADERA SUPERIOR COURT, No. 15-15188 (9th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOV 23 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LANA K. WILLIAMS, No. 15-15188 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01135-LJO-SKO v. MEMORANDUM* MADERA SUPERIOR COURT; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted November 16, 2016** Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 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 * 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). 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 (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. 2 15-15188

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.