Phillip A. Luna v. Mary L. Helf, Trial Court Adm'r Lane Cnty. Dist. Attorney Lane Cnty. Theodore Kulongoski State of Oregon, 66 F.3d 335 (9th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Phillip A. Luna v. Mary L. Helf, Trial Court Adm'r Lane Cnty. Dist. Attorney Lane Cnty. Theodore Kulongoski State of Oregon, 66 F.3d 335 (9th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Graboski v. Guiliani (nysd, 1996-09-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Graboski v. Guiliani
S.D.N.Y. · 1996 · confidence medium
Felde, 66 F.3d at 335 (9th Cir.1995). 17 .
discussed Cited "see" Peter Castellano v. The City of New York, Ronald Graboski v. Rudolph Guiliani, Alphonse Adornetti v. New York City Employees Retirement System, John A. Clifford v. New York Police Pension Fund, Serafino F. Velardi v. The New York City Fire Department Pension Fund
2d Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Felde v. City of San Jose, 839 F.Supp. 708, 710 (N.D.Cal.1994), aff'd mem., 66 F.3d 335 (9th Cir.1995) (employee afforded choice of regular and allegedly inferior disability retirement plans was given additional option of disability plan and not excluded from any retirement plan on the basis of disability); cf. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 , 105 S.Ct. 712, 720 , 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (no discrimination under Rehabilitation Act where state provides equal access to health care for all individuals).
discussed Cited "see" Castellano v. City of New York
2d Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Felde v. City of San Jose, 839 F.Supp. 708, 710 (N.D.Cal.1994), aff'd mem., 66 F.3d 335 (9th Cir.1995) (employee afforded choice of regular and allegedly inferior disability retirement plans was given additional option of disability plan and not excluded from any retirement plan on the basis of disability); cf. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 , 105 S.Ct. 712, 720 , 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (no discrimination under Rehabilitation Act where state provides equal access to health care for all individuals).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Fobar v. City of Dearborn Heights
E.D. Mich. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Felde v. City of San Jose, 839 F.Supp. 708 (N.D.Cal.1994), aff'd, 66 F.3d 335 , 1995 WL 547698 (9th Cir.1995) (the plaintiff was not discriminated against because he had been afforded the option to receive the contested benefit on the same terms available to others without disabilities).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Castellano v. City of New York
S.D.N.Y. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
The EEOC has issued guidelines stating that “[t]he ADA does not require that service retirement plans and disability retirement plans provide the same level .of benefits, because they are two separate benefits which serve different purposes_ Therefore, the employer does not violate the ADA simply by providing different benefits under service and disability retirement plans.” See EEOC Notice, “Questions and Answers About Disability and Service Retirement Plans Under the ADA, No. 915.002, May 15, 1995; see also Felde v. City of San Jose, 839 F.Supp. 708, 710 (N.D.Cal.1994), aff'd, 66 F.3d …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Phillip A. Luna
v.
Mary L. Helf, Trial Court Administrator Lane County District Attorney Lane County Theodore Kulongoski State of Oregon
94-35933.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 8, 1995.
66 F.3d 335
Unpublished

66 F.3d 335

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.
Phillip A. LUNA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Mary L. HELF, Trial Court Administrator; Lane County
District Attorney; Lane County; Theodore
Kulongoski; State of Oregon,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-35933.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 16, 1995.[*]
Decided Sept. 8, 1995.

Before: ALARCON, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[**]

2

Phillip A. Luna, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants in Luna's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action alleging defendants violated his constitutional rights by conspiring to deny him access to his grand jury records. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. We may affirm the district court's decision on any grounds supported by the record. United States v. Washington, 969 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1945 (1993). We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, Trent v. Valley Elec. Ass'n, 41 F.3d 524, 525 (9th Cir.1994), and affirm.

3

Luna contends that he presented adequate evidence to support his claim that defendants conspired to deny him access to the grand jury records for his indictment. This contention lacks merit.

4

In support of their summary judgment motion, defendants submitted the affidavit of Mary Helf, the county trial court administrator, who stated that the Lane County courts did not keep information connecting individual grand jurors to a particular case. In response to defendants' summary judgment motion, Luna submitted documents showing that other prisoners have received grand jury information from other courts. Luna did not, however, provide any evidence to suggest that the Lane County court has retained any of the records he requested pertaining to his 1989 indictment. Because Luna failed to show any genuine issue of material fact in support of his section 1983 claim or in support of his conspiracy claim, the district court did not err by granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. See Gizoni v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 909 F.2d 385, 387 (9th Cir.1990).

5

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