Lana K. Williams v. Madera Superior Court;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LANA K. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MADERA SUPERIOR COURT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-15188
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01135-LJO-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Lana K. Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging claims arising from state court probate proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152
FILED
NOV 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Williams’
claims regarding the state probate proceedings because, under the probate
exception, federal courts lack jurisdiction over probate matters. See Marshall v.
Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311-12 (2006).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Williams’ state law malpractice and fraud claims
because Williams failed to state a federal claim. See Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817,
821, 826 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review; “[a] court may decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
15-15188 2

-- 2 of 2 --