MOHAMED ABDELKADIR V. USPS, ET AL, No. 21-35843 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOHAMED ABDELKADIR, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-35843 D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01725-JCC v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; C.J. MARLEY, Tort Claims Supervisor; TERRELL T. CARRINGTON, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2022** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Mohamed Abdelkadir appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action alleging federal and state law claims for assault and battery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. * 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). We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Warren v. Fox Fam. Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Abdelkadir’s FTCA claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the FTCA does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity for claims of assault and battery. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h); Sheehan v. United States, 896 F.2d 1168, 1169 (9th Cir.), modified, 917 F.2d 424 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Under § 2680(h), the United States retains its immunity from suit for certain enumerated intentional torts.”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Abdelkadir’s state law assault and battery claims because the court dismissed Abdelkadir’s federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 940 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (discussing district court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction). We reject as meritless Abdelkadir’s contentions that the district court was biased against him. AFFIRMED. 2 21-35843

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.