Adelt v. Richmond School District

Ninth Circuit

Adelt v. Richmond School District

439 F.2d 718, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11472

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 9, 1971

DocketNo. 25703

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 439 F.2d 718 (Adelt v. Richmond School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adelt v. Richmond School District, 439 F.2d 718, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11472 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing her complaint without leave to amend. We affirm.

Plaintiff’s allegations affirmatively show a lack of federal jurisdiction of her claim. Diversity is non-existent— the parties all are citizens and residents of California. Nor is the action one which “arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States” and hence within the purview of 28 U. S.C. § 1331(a). To the contrary (and despite plaintiff’s conclusionary characterization of defendants’ acts as viola-tive of due process and equal protection, etc.) the claim is simply one for breach of contract, the charge being that the defendant school district refused to perform certain obligations imposed upon it under a teaching contract entered into with plaintiff.

Plaintiff did litigate her claim in the appropriate state court; the judgment went against her and was affirmed on appeal. Adelt v. Richmond School District, 250 Cal.App.2d 149, 58 Cal.Rptr. 151 (1967). Thereafter, the California Supreme Court denied her petition for hearing. The present suit, in effect, constitutes an attempt to have a federal court correct errors assertedly made in the state proceedings. However, the asserted errors are not of Constitutional dimension and present no federal question.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing her complaint without leave to amend. We affirm.

Plaintiff’s allegations affirmatively show a lack of federal jurisdiction of her claim. Diversity is non-existent— the parties all are citizens and residents of California. Nor is the action one which “arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States” and hence within the purview of 28 U. S.C. § 1331(a). To the contrary (and despite plaintiff’s conclusionary characterization of defendants’ acts as viola-tive of due process and equal protection, etc.) the claim is simply one for breach of contract, the charge being that the defendant school district refused to perform certain obligations imposed upon it under a teaching contract entered into with plaintiff.

Plaintiff did litigate her claim in the appropriate state court; the judgment went against her and was affirmed on appeal. Adelt v. Richmond School District, 250 Cal.App.2d 149, 58 Cal.Rptr. 151 (1967). Thereafter, the California Supreme Court denied her petition for hearing. The present suit, in effect, constitutes an attempt to have a federal court correct errors assertedly made in the state proceedings. However, the asserted errors are not of Constitutional dimension and present no federal question.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 F.2d 718, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 11472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adelt-v-richmond-school-district-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack