Carnohan v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Carnohan v. United States

296 F. App'x 603

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 20, 2008

DocketNo. 07-55100

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 296 F. App'x 603 (Carnohan v. United States) 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

Carnohan v. United States, 296 F. App'x 603 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Michael Casey Carnohan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) arising from the denial of permission to purchase a handgun. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (grant of summary judgment, dismissal for failure to state a claim); Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1050 (9th Cir.2002) (Eleventh Amendment immunity), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment because Carnohan failed to raise a triable issue as to the nature of his commitment to a mental health facility. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) (prohibiting a person “who has been committed to any mental [604]*604institution” from possessing a firearm); 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 (defining “[c]ommitted to a mental institution”); Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5250 (providing for treatment of a person who “has been advised of the need for, but has not been willing or able to accept, treatment on a voluntary basis”).

The district court properly granted the United States’ motion to dismiss Carnohan’s FTCA claim because Carnohan based his claim on the alleged misuse or misapplication of a federal statute. See Delta Savings Bank v. United States, 265 F.3d 1017, 1024-25 (9th Cir.2001) (explaining that to state an FTCA claim, plaintiff must show that the government’s conduct violated a state law).

The district court properly granted the State of California’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See U.S. Const. amend. XI; Federal Maritime Comm’n v. South Carolina State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 765, 122 S.Ct. 1864, 152 L.Ed.2d 962 (2002) (“[Sjovereign immunity applies regardless of whether a private plaintiffs suit is for monetary damages or some other type of relief.”).

Carnohan’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Michael Casey Carnohan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) arising from the denial of permission to purchase a handgun. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815, 816 (9th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (grant of summary judgment, dismissal for failure to state a claim); Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1050 (9th Cir.2002) (Eleventh Amendment immunity), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment because Carnohan failed to raise a triable issue as to the nature of his commitment to a mental health facility. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) (prohibiting a person “who has been committed to any mental [604]*604institution” from possessing a firearm); 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 (defining “[c]ommitted to a mental institution”); Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5250 (providing for treatment of a person who “has been advised of the need for, but has not been willing or able to accept, treatment on a voluntary basis”).

The district court properly granted the United States’ motion to dismiss Carnohan’s FTCA claim because Carnohan based his claim on the alleged misuse or misapplication of a federal statute. See Delta Savings Bank v. United States, 265 F.3d 1017, 1024-25 (9th Cir.2001) (explaining that to state an FTCA claim, plaintiff must show that the government’s conduct violated a state law).

The district court properly granted the State of California’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See U.S. Const. amend. XI; Federal Maritime Comm’n v. South Carolina State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 765, 122 S.Ct. 1864, 152 L.Ed.2d 962 (2002) (“[Sjovereign immunity applies regardless of whether a private plaintiffs suit is for monetary damages or some other type of relief.”).

Carnohan’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 F. App'x 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carnohan-v-united-states-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack