Krain v. Gislason (1988)

Indeed, a “pro se litigant [is] entitled to procedural protections, including [the] right to amend [a] complaint unless futile.” Eldridge, 832 F.2d at 1136 (emphasis added) (citation omitted); see also Houghton v. South, 865 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1988) (unpublished) (holding that the “policy of liberality under Rule 15 for pro se plaintiffs” means “the district court should have allowed Houghton to supplement his complaint . . . on remand from the first appeal” to “allege[] an …

See In re North Side Lumber Co., 83 B.R. 735, 737 (9th Cir. BAP 1987), aff'd, 865 F.2d 264 (9th Cir.1988).

See In re North Side Lumber Co., 83 B.R. 735, 737 (9th Cir. BAP 1987), aff'd, 865 F.2d 264 (9th Cir.1988). 11 Under Oklahoma law, the task of interpreting the Lien Act begins with the plain language of the statute.

See Massey v. Coon, 865 F.2d 264 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming dismissal 4 where “on its face the complaint states a claim under the due process and equal protection 5 clauses of the Constitution, [but] these constitutional claims are entirely based on the 6 failure of defendants to conform to state law”); see also Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 90 (“[W]hen 7 a plaintiff alleges that a state official has violated state law” and “when a federal court 8 instructs state officials on how t…

See also In re N. Side Lumber Co., 865 F.2d 264, at *1 ("Federal courts have interpreted [the] language of [§ 362(b)(3) and § 546(b)] as excepting from [§]362(a)(4)'s automatic stay of any act of perfection which relates back to a prior act of creation, and which is therefore effective against an interest in the property acquired in the interim.").

See, In re North Side Lumber Co., 59 B.R. 917 (Bankr.D.Or.1986), aff'd, 83 B.R. 735 (9th Cir.B.A.P.1987), and aff'd, 865 F.2d 264 (9th Cir.1988); In re Cummings Mkt., Inc., 53 B.R. 224 (Bankr.D.Vt.1985); In re New England Carpet Co., 26 B.R. 934 (Bankr.D.Vt.1983).