Wolfgang Nebmaier v. Josephine County

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 25, 2019
• Docket: 18-35743
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WOLFGANG NEBMAIER, No. 18-35743

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01258-MC

v. MEMORANDUM* JOSEPHINE COUNTY, a political entity in the State of Oregon along with all related regulatory entities, past or present, engaged in the violation of 7:301, the Morrill Act of July 2nd, 1862. (in the following “Josephine County”),

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 19, 2018**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Wolfgang Nebmaier appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging claims under the Morrill Act of 1862, 7 U.S.C.

* 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). § 301. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Nebmaier’s action because the Morrill

Act of 1862 does not provide a private right of action. See UFCW Local 1500

Pension Fund v. Mayer, 895 F.3d 695, 698-99 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth

circumstances under which the court may interpret a private right of action, and

explaining that a private right of action requires evidence of a congressional intent

to create a private right and a private remedy).

Nebmaier’s request to strike defendant’s answering brief, set forth in his

reply brief, is denied.

Defendant’s pending motion (Docket Entry No. 15) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 18-35743