Samuel Rosen v. Property Advantage Partners ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                           NOV 30 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    SAMUEL ROSEN,                                    No. 13-56409
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00864-DMS-
    NLS
    v.
    PROPERTY ADVANTAGE PARTNERS;                     MEMORANDUM*
    et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 18, 2015**
    Before:        TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    Samuel Rosen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
    his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims against the property
    management company of a private, residential mobile home park. We have
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to
    state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 
    152 F.3d 1193
    ,
    1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
    The district court properly dismissed Rosen’s § 1983 claim because Rosen
    failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant acted under color of
    state law. See West v. Atkins, 
    487 U.S. 42
    , 48 (1988) (“To state a claim under
    § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution
    and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was
    committed by a person acting under color of state law.”).
    However, we vacate the judgment in part and remand with instructions to
    dismiss Rosen’s state law claims without prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro.
    Police Dep’t, 
    40 F.3d 1041
    , 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (“When . . . the court dismisses
    the federal claim leaving only state claims for resolution, the court should decline
    jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them without prejudice.” (citation and
    internal quotation marks omitted; alteration in original)); see also 28 U.S.C.
    § 1367(c)(3) (a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
    over state law claims upon the dismissal of all federal claims).
    AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
    2                                     13-56409
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-56409

Judges: Tashima, Owens, Friedland

Filed Date: 11/30/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024