Michael Henry v. Homecomings Financial

MEMORANDUM

Michael S. Henry and Doreen H. Lee appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice their action against various defendants for alleged constitutional violations in auctioning their home through foreclosure proceedings. Appellants also challenge the order denying their request for consolidation with another action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal without leave to amend, Smith v. Pac. Props. & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097 , 1100 (9th Cir.2004), and for abuse of discretion a denial of a motion for consolidation, Washington v. Daley, 173 F.3d 1158 , 1169 n. 13 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Henry’s and Lee’s Supremacy Clause claim because they failed to allege that any defendant’s role in instituting foreclosure proceedings or auctioning their home at a public sale was pursuant to a state law which conflicted with federal law. See Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 493 U.S. 103, 107 , 110 S.Ct. 444 , 107 L.Ed.2d 420 (1989) (stating that the Supremacy Clause “is not a source of any federal rights; it secures federal rights by according them priority…