Mohamed Abdelkadir v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; C.J. MARLEY, Tort Claims Supervisor; TERRELL T. CARRINGTON

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAMED ABDELKADIR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; C.J.
MARLEY, Tort Claims Supervisor;
TERRELL T. CARRINGTON,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-35843
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01725-JCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Mohamed Abdelkadir appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action alleging federal and state
law claims for assault and battery. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
* 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
NOV 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-35843
We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Warren v. Fox Fam. Worldwide, Inc., 328 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2003). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Abdelkadir’s FTCA claims for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction because the FTCA does not waive the United States’
sovereign immunity for claims of assault and battery. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h);
Sheehan v. United States, 896 F.2d 1168, 1169 (9th Cir.), modified, 917 F.2d 424
(9th Cir. 1990) (“Under § 2680(h), the United States retains its immunity from suit
for certain enumerated intentional torts.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Abdelkadir’s state law assault and battery claims
because the court dismissed Abdelkadir’s federal claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 940 (9th Cir. 2012) (en
banc) (discussing district court’s discretion to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction).
We reject as meritless Abdelkadir’s contentions that the district court was
biased against him.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --