Ronald Wayne Strifler v. Behavioral Sys. Sw., Inc., 48 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Ronald Wayne Strifler v. Behavioral Sys. Sw., Inc., 48 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
44 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Alo v. Fresno City College (caed, 2022-12-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alo v. Fresno City College
E.D. Cal. · 2022 · confidence medium
Eleventh Amendment Immunity 24 As a preliminary matter, “the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state brought by 25 its own citizens, whether the relief sought is money damages or an injunction.” Seater v. Cal. 26 State Univ., Fullerton, 48 F.3d 1228, 1228 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alo v. Fresno City College
E.D. Cal. · 2022 · confidence medium
Eleventh Amendment Immunity 19 As a preliminary matter, “the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state brought by 20 its own citizens, whether the relief sought is money damages or an injunction.” Seater v. Cal. 21 State Univ., Fullerton, 48 F.3d 1228, 1228 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marin v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca College Board of Trustees
S.D. Cal. · 2022 · confidence medium
Code 11 § 1085 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ; (4) deliberate indifference in violation of the 12 Fourteenth Amendment; (5) retaliation in violation of the First and Fourteenth 13 Amendments; and (6) negligent failure to supervise in violation of state common 14 law. 15 For the following reasons, the Court finds that Marin’s Complaint plainly fails 16 to state plausible claims and seeks impermissible forms of relief. 17 A. Eleventh Amendment Immunity 18 As a preliminary matter, “the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state 19 brought by its own citizens, whether the relief sought is money da…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mohr v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee
D. Haw. · 2019 · confidence medium
Exceptions to Res Judicata Res Judicata is subject to some “narrow exceptions.” Maxim v. Dalton, 48 F.3d 1228, 1228 (9th Cir. 1995).
Ronald Wayne Strifler
v.
Behavioral Systems Southwest, Inc.
94-16173.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 28, 1995.
48 F.3d 1228
Published

48 F.3d 1228
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.

Ronald Wayne STRIFLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS SOUTHWEST, INC., et. al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-16173.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 21, 1995.[*]
Decided Feb. 28, 1995.

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[**]

2

Ronald Wayne Strifler, formerly a resident at an Arizona Community Correction Center, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from its judgment of dismissal for failure to comply with the district court's order and failure to prosecute in Strifler's Bivens action against Behavioral Systems Southwest, Inc. and various of its employees (collectively "BSSW"). Strifler alleged that he was improperly subjected to a disciplinary transfer from BSSW's community corrections center after he tested positive for cocaine. Strifler contends the district court erred in denying his Rule 60(b) motion because there was excusable neglect for his failure to obey the court's order, based on the fact that he was pro se, he was under emotional stress, and he was unable to communicate with the court from November 16, 1993 through January 6, 1994.[1]

3

For the reasons stated therein, the district court's order denying Strifler's Rule 60(b) motion for reinstatement is

4

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

We decline to consider the issues which Strifler raises for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Munoz, 746 F.2d 1389, 1390 (9th Cir.1984)