Frost v. Fox

53 F.3d 338 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Charles H. FROST; Sheila E. Frost, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James P. FOX, Ruben Barrales; Mary Griffin; Tom Huening; Ted Lampert; Michael D. Nevin; Anna G. Eschoo; Tom Nolan; William J. Schumacher; San Mateo County; Geraldine E. Green; Edward M. Riordan; John H. Booker, Kenneth North; James A. Edmonds, Jr.; Clark Wallace; V.J. Whipple; State of California; David R. Packard, Packard, Mellberg & McConnell, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-16551. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 19, 1995. * Decided April 26, 1995. Before: BROWNING, SNEED, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Charles H. and Sheila E. Frost appeal pro se the district court's order that: (1) dismissed their 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and (2) declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their pendant state law claims. The Frosts also request that this court allow…