Bruce Murchison v. John Pedicone , 576 F. App'x 675 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRUCE P. MURCHISON, No. 12-17480
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:11-cv-00281-DTF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN PEDICONE, Dr., in his official
capacity as Superintendent of TUSD; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
D. Thomas Ferraro, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Bruce P. Murchison appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging equal protection and breach of
contract claims arising from a denial of performance-based compensation. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Murchison’s equal protection claim
because Murchison failed to allege sufficient facts to show that the denial of
performance-based compensation was due to his membership in a protected class
or without a rational basis. See Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1098 (9th Cir.
2009) (explaining rational basis review and when it applies to an alleged equal
protection violation); Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir.
1995) (framework for analyzing an equal protection claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Murchison’s breach of contract claim. See
Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988) (where all federal
claims are eliminated before trial, courts generally should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims); Tritchler v. County of
Lake, 358 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-17480