Delbert Crawford v. United States, 967 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
Delbert Crawford v. United States, 967 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
72 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Cook v. Chagollan (azd, 2025-08-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) caed 2025
E.D. Cal. · 2025 · confidence medium
In general, a pro se litigant “must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it 7 is ‘absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’” 8 Colbert v. Borg, 967 F.2d 585, 585 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 802 F.2d 1446 , 1448 9 (9th Cir. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cook v. Chagollan
D. Ariz. · 2025 · confidence medium
Cal. Sept. 18, 2024) (quoting Colbert v. Borg, 967 F.2d 585, 585 (9th 2|| Cir. 1992)). 3 The Court cannot give Plaintiff leave to amend here since her federal claims are 4|| time barred and any amendment to these claims would therefore be futile.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Infante v. Namecheap Incorporated
D. Ariz. · 2025 · confidence medium
Cal. Sept. 18, 2024) (quoting Colbert 28 v. Borg, 967 F.2d 585, 585 (9th Cir. 1992)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) (PS) Cheung v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · confidence medium
A pro se litigant “must be given leave to amend his or her complaint 23 unless it is ‘absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by 24 amendment.’” Colbert v. Borg, 967 F.2d 585, 585 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 802 25 F.2d 1446 , 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Duell v. Genser
S.D. Cal. · 2021 · confidence medium
See San Jose Silicon 23 Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 24 25 26 10 According to the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department website, Plaintiff was booked into County custody in San Diego Criminal Case No. SCD279745 on May 2, 2019, but has yet to be tried or sentenced. 27 See https://apps.sdsheriff.net/wij/wijDetail.aspx?BookNum=LjrB5gNMagoGDldo3hRD0IY 60kQor1G % 2fdJizJZGT0RQ%3d (last accessed March 4, 2021). 28 1 1087, 1095 (9th Cir. 2008); Clark v. Lassen Cnty Justice Court, 967 F.2d 585 at *1 (9th 2 Cir. 1992) (sua sponte dismissing federal c…
discussed Cited "see" Hirt v. Jackson County
D. Or. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Clark v. Lassen Cnty Justice Court, 967 F.2d 585 , at *1 (9th Cir. 1992) (sua sponte dismissing federal civil action challenging state court’s bail determinations as frivolous pursuant to [former] 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d) as barred by Younger); see also Rivera v. Gore, Case No. 3:17-cv-02225-WQH- NLS, 2018 WL 1001252 , at *6 (S.D.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Lang
unknown court · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Foley v. Sullivan, 967 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1992). 42 U.S.C. § 404 provides a procedure for recoupment of overpaid social security disability funds, as well as protection's for disability benefit recipientswho may not be required to repay any overpayment if found to be without fault, 42 U.S.C. §§ 404 (a);(b)(1).
cited Cited "see" Clark v. Richman
M.D. Penn. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Clark v. Kizer, 758 F.Supp. 572, 576 (E.D.Cal.1990), affd in relevant part sub nom., Clark v. Coye, 967 F.2d 585 (9th Cir.1992).
discussed Cited "see" Marino v. Classic Auto Refinishing, Inc. (In Re Marino) (2×)
9th Cir. BAP · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Daily, 125 B.R. 816, 817-18 (Bankr.D.Hawai'i 1991), aff'd, 967 F.2d 585 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that dismissal for failure to prosecute constituted a final adjudication on the merits subject to res judicata, and citing Mondakota Gas Co. v. Reed, 244 F.Supp. 327, 332 (D.Mont.1964), aff'd sub nom., S-W Co. v. Fidelity Gas Co., 349 F.2d 1020 (9th Cir.1965)).
discussed Cited "see" Sobky v. Smoley
E.D. Cal. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Clark v. Kizer, 758 F.Supp. 572, 580 (E.D.Cal.1990) (the “plain meaning of ‘be in effect’ would appear to be that the [Medi-Cal dental care] program shall be in existence, operational and functioning”), affd in part and vacated in part on other grounds sub nom., Clark v. Coye, 967 F.2d 585 (9th Cir.1992) (table); Morgan v. Cohen, 665 F.Supp. 1164, 1178 (E.D.Pa.1987) (the plan must “operate uniformly across the state”); Christy v. Ibarra, 826 P.2d 361, 364 (Colo.1991) (statewide requirement is violated where “services are available in some counties and not available in the nei…
Delbert Crawford
v.
United States
91-36111.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 19, 1992.
967 F.2d 585
Unpublished

967 F.2d 585

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.
Delbert CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 91-36111.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 10, 1992.[*]
Decided June 19, 1992.

Before FLETCHER, LEAVY and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[**]

2

Delbert Crawford, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. Crawford contends that his conviction for conspiracy to possess a firearm and firearm possession by a felon is invalid because his prior convictions were not felonies within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.[1]

3

Crawford's prior convictions were Idaho state court convictions for burglary, perjury, and robbery. After he served the sentences for these prior convictions, his civil rights were restored under Idaho law. See Idaho Code § 18-310(2). On October 16, 1984, he was convicted of one count of conspiracy to possess a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and two counts of firearm possession by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a)(1) (1982) (repealed Nov. 16, 1986).

4

Before 1986, section 1202(a)(1) prohibited firearm possession by any person "who has been convicted by a court of the United States or of a State or any political subdivision thereof of a felony." 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a)(1). 18 U.S.C. § 922(h)(1) prohibited firearm possession by any person "who is under indictment for, or who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." The determination whether a defendant had been convicted of a felony under section 1202(a)(1) or 922(h)(1) was a question of federal law rather than state law, and so a conviction that had been expunged under state law still was a predicate conviction under these sections. Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 111-12 (1983); United States v. Freed, 703 F.2d 394, 395 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 839 (1983); cf. 18 U.S.C. app. § 1203 (repealed) (section 1202(a)(1) did not apply to ex-felons who had been pardoned and expressly authorized by the president or the chief executive of a state to possess firearms).

5

In 1986, section 1202(a)(1) was repealed and section 922 was amended to prohibit firearm possession by any person "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year." 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (1986). The determination whether a prior conviction is a predicate offense under section 922(g)(1) is made "in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held." 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) (1986). Moreover, "[a]ny conviction which has been expunged, or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered" a predicate conviction. Id.; United States v. Dahms, 938 F.2d 131, 133 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Gomez, 911 F.2d 219, 220 (9th Cir.1990).

6

Crawford contends that even though section 921(a)(20) was enacted two years after his conviction, it applies to him, and therefore his prior convictions are not predicate convictions because his civil rights have been restored under Idaho law. Section 921(a)(20) does not apply retroactively to invalidate earlier convictions under former section 1202(a)(1). United States v. Brebner, 951 F.2d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir.1991). Accordingly, Crawford's contention lacks merit.

7

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

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

1

Even though Crawford has served his sentence, this case is not moot because his conviction has collateral consequences. See Feldman v. Perrill, 902 F.2d 1445, 1448 (9th Cir.1990). Moreover, he is "in custody" as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because he is serving a sentence enhanced by the firearm conviction. See id. at 1448-49 (analysing custody requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2241)