Kaytrena J. Francis v. United States of America;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAYTRENA J. FRANCIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17277
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-06125-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Kaytrena J. Francis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) dismissing her action arising from an
FILED
APR 20 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-17277 2
incident at Eglin Air Force Base and subsequent criminal proceedings against her.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Orff v. United
States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 2004) (sovereign immunity);
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004)
(personal jurisdiction); Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir.
2009) (absolute immunity); Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697, 703 (9th Cir. 2006)
(failure to state a claim).
We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s orders entered on
September 16, 2008, and September 30, 2008.
To the extent Francis challenges the dismissal of the assault and battery
claims, we lack jurisdiction to consider her contentions because the dismissal of
those claims was beyond the scope of the Rule 54(b) judgment. See Air-Sea
Forwarders, Inc. v. Air Asia Co., 880 F.2d 176, 178-79 & n.1, 190 n.17 (9th Cir.
1989) (explaining that, on appeal from a Rule 54(b) order, there is no jurisdiction
over claims that are not within the scope of that order).
Francis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --