George Bartz v. Maggie Miller-Stout

Ninth Circuit

George Bartz v. Maggie Miller-Stout

582 F. App'x 688

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 2, 2014

Docket13-35380

StatusUnpublished

This text of 582 F. App'x 688 (George Bartz v. Maggie Miller-Stout) 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

George Bartz v. Maggie Miller-Stout, 582 F. App'x 688 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Former Washington state prisoner George Bartz appeals pro se from the *689 district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations in connection with the deduction of military retirement benefits from his inmate account. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bartz’s state law claims after it had dismissed his federal claims. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988) (where all federal claims are eliminated before trial, courts generally should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint counsel to assist Bartz in connection with summary judgment or by granting Bartz’s appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.2009) (setting forth the standard or review and discussing the “exceptional circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)); LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir.1998) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion the district court’s order granting a counsel’s motion to withdraw).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, including whether the district court properly granted summary for defendants on Bartz’s federal claims. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

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 **

Former Washington state prisoner George Bartz appeals pro se from the *689 district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law violations in connection with the deduction of military retirement benefits from his inmate account. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Bartz’s state law claims after it had dismissed his federal claims. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n. 7, 108 S.Ct. 614, 98 L.Ed.2d 720 (1988) (where all federal claims are eliminated before trial, courts generally should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint counsel to assist Bartz in connection with summary judgment or by granting Bartz’s appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.2009) (setting forth the standard or review and discussing the “exceptional circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)); LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1269 (9th Cir.1998) (reviewing for an abuse of discretion the district court’s order granting a counsel’s motion to withdraw).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, including whether the district court properly granted summary for defendants on Bartz’s federal claims. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

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)

582 F. App'x 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-bartz-v-maggie-miller-stout-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack