Harp v. Chertoff

Ninth Circuit

Harp v. Chertoff

212 F. App'x 679

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 13, 2006

DocketNo. 05-36230

StatusPublished

This text of 212 F. App'x 679 (Harp v. Chertoff) 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

Harp v. Chertoff, 212 F. App'x 679 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Richard Harp appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights action arising from the termination of his employment with the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbosa, 134 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Harp’s action for want of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir.1981) (recognizing that the district court may dismiss for lack of jurisdiction where federal claims are wholly insubstantial).

Harp’s contention that the district court “erred in believing this was a continuation of [his] DHS internal appeal” is not supported by the record.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit 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

**

Richard Harp appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights action arising from the termination of his employment with the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbosa, 134 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Harp’s action for want of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir.1981) (recognizing that the district court may dismiss for lack of jurisdiction where federal claims are wholly insubstantial).

Harp’s contention that the district court “erred in believing this was a continuation of [his] DHS internal appeal” is not supported by the record.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 F. App'x 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harp-v-chertoff-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack