MYHRNA BLACK, FKA Myhrna Tenente v. NATHAN TODD YOUNG, Ninth Judicial District Court Judge;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MYHRNA BLACK, FKA Myhrna Tenente,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NATHAN TODD YOUNG, Ninth Judicial
District Court Judge; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15730
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00332-MMD-
WGC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Myrhna Black, FKA Myhrna Tenente, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising
from the issuance of a subpoena in a Nevada state court proceeding. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
* 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).
FILED
MAR 23 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15730
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Black’s constitutional claims under 18
U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 because those statutes do not provide a basis for civil
liability. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding that
§§ 241 and 242 do not provide a basis for civil liability).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Black’s state law claims after dismissing Black’s
federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (permitting district court to decline
supplemental jurisdiction if it has “dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction”); Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101, 1107
(9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review).
Contrary to Black’s contention, the district court properly denied
defendants’ motions to dismiss as moot after dismissing the federal claims and
declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
Black’s request (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --