885 F. 2d 875 - Friedman v. Denny
885 F2d 875 Friedman v. Denny
885 F.2d 875
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Kenneth Andrew FRIEDMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Mary DENNY, Keith Wade Billy, Ona Lee Denny, a/k/a Ona Lee
Billy, Defendants-Appellees,
No. 88-3901.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 11, 1989.*
Decided Sept. 14, 1989.
Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, WALLACE, and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
MEMORANDUM**
Friedman is a prisoner in a state penal institution in Arizona. He has appealed pro se from a judgment of the district court dismissing his claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985, in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1343. The petition alleged that the named defendants had conspired to deprive the plaintiff of his parental rights. He asserted that the defendants, all Native American Indians, were motivated by racial animus in their attempts to destroy the relationship of Friedman, a non-Indian, and his minor son. The defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
We affirm for the reasons given by the district judge in his Memorandum and Order of March 28, 1988 and his subsequent order of May 31, 1988.
The district judge correctly applied the Domestic Relations Exception to federal jurisdiction, citing Ex parte Burrus, 136 U.S. 586 (1890) and McIntyre v. McIntyre, 771 F.2d 1316 (9th Cir.1985).
The district judge observed:
Friedman cannot overcome the inherent limitation of federal court jurisdiction regarding domestic relations by the mere expediency of casting his claim in terms of a conspiracy designed to deprive Friedman of equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.
AFFIRMED. No petition for rehearing will be entertained. See Fed.R.App.P. 2; Lupert v. California State Bar, 761 F.2d 1325, 1329 (9th Cir.1985).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4
Advertisement
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3