Mario Torres v. Natalie Saba ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 11 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO TORRES, No. 19-15082
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-06587-SI
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NATALIE SABA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
MIKE HANSEN, Officer; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Mario Torres appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his § 1983
claims against Contra Costa County (“the County”) and Contra Costa County
Office of the Public Defender (“the Public Defender Office”), and declining to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims against the
Public Defender Office, two individual public defenders, and four court reporters.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case we need not recount them
here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court did not err in dismissing the § 1983 claims against
the County and the Public Defender Office relating to the policy of not providing
represented, incarcerated criminal defendants photocopies of discovery. See Puri
v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017) (reviewing de novo a district court
order dismissing a complaint). There is no authority establishing the constitutional
right of represented defendants to be left with discovery materials while
incarcerated. This is fatal to Torres’s § 1983 claims. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978).
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims after dismissing the
claims over which it had original jurisdiction at such an early stage of litigation.
See Parra v. PacifiCare of Ariz., Inc., 715 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013).
2
AFFIRMED.
3