Shong-Ching Tong v. Paul Turner, Individually Coleman A. Swart, Individually Los Angeles Cnty. State of California, 70 F.3d 1280 (9th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Shong-Ching Tong v. Paul Turner, Individually Coleman A. Swart, Individually Los Angeles Cnty. State of California, 70 F.3d 1280 (9th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Patrick Castro v. C&C Verde LLC (ca9, 2025-03-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
cited Cited "see" Patrick Castro v. C&C Verde LLC
9th Cir. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See S.E.C. v. Osborne, Stern & Co., 70 F.3d 1280 , 1281 (9th Cir. 1995).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Colleen Mary Rohan v. Jill Brown
N.D. Cal. · 2020 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Spencer v. Klauser, 70 F.3d 1280 , 1995 WL 20 710610, at *1 (9th Cir. 1995) (unpublished table opinion) (finding sufficient evidence to warrant 21 an evidentiary hearing on competence, despite the opinions of two contemporaneous 22 psychological experts that the habeas petitioner was competent at the time of his trial, because 23 such experts “had not been retained to make that specific determination”). 24 Second, the significance of trial counsels’ failure to raise petitioner’s incompetency at trial 25 is blunted somewhat by the fact that petitioner is also alleging that hi…
Shong-Ching Tong
v.
Paul Turner, Individually Coleman A. Swart, Individually Los Angeles County State of California
95-55692.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 22, 1995.
70 F.3d 1280
Unpublished

70 F.3d 1280

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Shong-Ching TONG, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Paul TURNER, Individually; Coleman A. Swart, Individually;
Los Angeles County; State of California,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-55692.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 20, 1995.[*]
Decided Nov. 22, 1995.

Before: PREGERSON, NORRIS, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[**]

2

Shong-Ching Tong appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action alleging his civil rights were violated by state judges during proceedings in Tong's tort litigation in state court. We have jurisdiction, and we affirm for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation which was adopted in full by the district court.

3

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