Lazarus Kipkirwa v. Santa Clara Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 139 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Lazarus Kipkirwa v. Santa Clara Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 139 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“jacobs' claim that he was denied due process because the state habeas court refused to appoint counsel at the evidentiary hearing fails for lack of a right to counsel in state collateral proceedings.”
41 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: HARPER v. WINGARD (pawd, 2020-03-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) HARPER v. WINGARD
W.D. Pa. · 2020 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
jacobs' claim that he was denied due process because the state habeas court refused to appoint counsel at the evidentiary hearing fails for lack of a right to counsel in state collateral proceedings.
discussed Cited "see" Boutros v. Adiadi
S.D. Cal. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kabbe v. City of San Diego, 139 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 5 || 1998) (“The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Kabbe’s action because 6 ||her claims are fanciful, delusional and legally frivolous.”’). 7 IV.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Johnson v. Lewis
E.D. Mich. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Kabbe v. City of San Diego, 139 F.3d 905 , 1998 WL 80375, *1 (9th Cir. 1998) (unpublished) (affirming dismissal of complaint where plaintiff alleged defendants intercepted and broadcast her thoughts); Lang v. United States, 188 F.3d 508 , 1 (6th Cir. 1999) (dismissing allegations that defendants conspired to intercept plaintiff’s thoughts, dreams, and emotions by use of a satellite surveillance system); Ford v. Harvey, 106 F. App’x 397, 2 (6th Cir. 2004) (dismissing claims of tampering with the main food supply, not just with plaintiff’s own meal).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." (PS) Mackintosh v. Lyft, Inc.
E.D. Cal. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence low
Allen v. Gold Country Cascino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006); see also, e.g., 17 Kingsley v. Ashworth, 139 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s federal 18 wire fraud claim “as 18 U.S.C. § 1343 does not give rise to a private cause of action.”); Lamb v. 19 Phillip Morris, Inc., 915 F.2d 1024, 1027 (6th Cir. 1990) (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act does not 20 create implied private right of action); Minor v. Fedex Office & Print Servs., Inc., 182 F. Supp. 21 3d 966, 977 (N.D.
Lazarus Kipkirwa
v.
Santa Clara County Department of Social Services
97-15373.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 19, 1998.
139 F.3d 905
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 68%
Citer courts: W.D. Pennsylvania (1)

139 F.3d 905

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.
Lazarus KIPKIRWA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-15373.
D.C. No. CV-95-20659-JW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 9, 1998.[**]
Decided Feb. 19, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Ware, District Judge, Presiding.

Before CANBY, LEAVY and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[*]

2

Lazarus Kipkirwa appeals pro se the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his action against the Santa Clara County Department of Social Services, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when Kipkirwa allegedly was denied food stamps and general assistance. We conclude the district court did not err by denying Kipkirwa's motion to recuse the district judge for bias and prejudice. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). We further conclude this action was properly dismissed for failure to prosecute when Kipkirwa refused to file before that district judge any response to the County's motions.

3

AFFIRMED.

**

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Kipkirwa's request for oral argument is denied

*

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