green
Positive treatment
8.0 score
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
(PC) Washington v. Thurston
See 4 Taylor v. Kolbaba, 909 F.2d 1489 , *2 (9th Cir. 1990) (unpublished table opinion) (deciding that 5 the entirety of a pro se plaintiff’s original complaint which included claims that provided no 6 private right of action was frivolous and could not be cured by amendment); Self v. Chase Bank, 7 N.A., 2011 WL 3813106 , at *5 (E.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Downing v. Ekstrom
See Taylor v. Kolbaba, 909 F.2d 1489 , *2 (9th Cir. 1990) (unpublished 9 table opinion) (deciding that the entirety of a pro se plaintiff’s original complaint 10 which included claims that provided no private right of action was frivolous and 11 could not be cured by amendment); Self v. Chase Bank, N.A., No. CIV S-10-2199- 12 FCD, 2011 WL 3813106 , at *5 (E.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Markley v. City of Seattle
See Taylor v. Kolbaba, 909 F.2d 1489 (9th Cir. 1990) (mem.) (holding that claims 17 brought under 18 U.S.C. § 241 could not be cured by amendment because there is no private 18 right of action under this criminal statute).
discussed
Cited "see"
Grandinetti v. Barajas
See Sands v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corr., 909 F.2d 1489 , 1489 (9th Cir. 1990) (unpublished) (agreeing with district court that institutional defendant was not a proper party to the complaint because plaintiff failed to make specific allegations against it).
discussed
Cited "see"
Grandinetti v. Komori
See Sands v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corr., 909 F.2d 1489 , 1489 (9th Cir. 1990) (unpublished) (agreeing with district court that institutional defendant was not a proper party to the complaint because plaintiff failed to make specific allegations against it).
cited
Cited "see"
Casavelli v. Johanson
See Taylor v. Kolbaba, 909 F.2d 1489 (9th Cir. 1990) (unpublished table decision).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lewis v. Chase Airport Management Inc.
See e.g., Sands, 909 F.2d at 25 *2 (“Because the ADOC cannot be sued under § 1983 for damages and because Sands 26 failed to make specific allegations requesting prospective relief against it in its complaint, 27 the district court did not err holding that ADOC was not a proper party to the complaint.”); 28 Raya v. Barka, No. 19-cv-2295-WQH-AHG, 2020 WL 3469374 , at *3 (S.D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Holiday (James), A/K/A Holiday (Harold J.), A/K/A 'Doc'
v.
Holiday (James), A/K/A Holiday (Harold J.), A/K/A 'Doc'
88-5321.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 6, 1990.
Published
U.S.
v.
Holiday (James), a/k/a Holiday (Harold J.), a/k/a 'Doc'
NO. 88-5321
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
AUG 06, 1990
1
Appeal From: C.D.Cal.
2
AFFIRMED.