Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8627038
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Harp v. Chertoff
No. 8627038 · Decided December 13, 2006
No. 8627038·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
December 13, 2006
Citation
No. 8627038
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Richard Harp appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights action arising from the termination of his employment with the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbosa, 134 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Harp’s action for want of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Franklin v. State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir.1981) (recognizing that the district court may dismiss for lack of jurisdiction where federal claims are wholly insubstantial). Harp’s contention that the district court “erred in believing this was a continuation of [his] DHS internal appeal” is not supported by the record. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Richard Harp appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights action arising from the termination of his employment with the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Richard Harp appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights action arising from the termination of his employment with the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).
02The district court properly dismissed Harp’s action for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
03State of Or., State Welfare Div., 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir.1981) (recognizing that the district court may dismiss for lack of jurisdiction where federal claims are wholly insubstantial).
04Harp’s contention that the district court “erred in believing this was a continuation of [his] DHS internal appeal” is not supported by the record.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Richard Harp appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights action arising from the termination of his employment with the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Harp v. Chertoff in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on December 13, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8627038 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.