From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dawson v. Lewis

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 3, 2000
211 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2000)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

affirming fee award to prevailing defendant; explaining that section 412 "does not apply to this case because there has been no finding of infringement"

Summary of this case from Latin American Music Co. v. Ascap
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

211 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2000) Lawrence DAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel A. LEWIS, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections; Theodore Jolley, in his official capacity; Patricia Stapler, in her official capacity; Dimitri Catsaros, in his official capacity; Theodore Smith, in his official capacity; Fran Tucker, in his official capacity; Dorothy C. Vigil, in her official capacity; William Gaspar, in his official capacity; Daniel Vanelli, in his official capacity; Fran Cheske, in her official capacity; Ben Reys, in his official capacity; Ray Rickelman, in his official capacity; Lloyd Buckmaster, in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-15136. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit March 3, 2000

Submitted February 24, 2000.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

D.C. No. CV-96-00211-RMB

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Richard M. Bilby, District Judge, Presiding.

Before BOOCHEVER, LEAVY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Lawrence Dawson, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action sua sponte for failure to comply with the statute of limitations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Ellis v. City of San Diego, 176 F.3d 1183, 1188 (9th Cir.1999), and conclude that the district court did not err. See DeLuna v. Farris, 841 F.2d 312, 313 (9th Cir.1987); see also Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-502 (1995); Vega v. Morris, 910 P.2d 6, 9 (Ariz.1996) (en banc).

We deny all pending motions.

AFFIRMED.

Summaries of

Dawson v. Lewis

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 3, 2000
211 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2000)

affirming fee award to prevailing defendant; explaining that section 412 "does not apply to this case because there has been no finding of infringement"

Summary of this case from Latin American Music Co. v. Ascap

recognizing that prisoner may be able to allege facts showing deliberate indifference when he was injured from fall out of a vehicle while transported in handcuffs behind his back in a vehicle without doors, seat belts or restraints

Summary of this case from Spencer v. Hernandez

recognizing that prisoner may be able to allege deliberate indifference when he was injured from fall out of a vehicle while transported in handcuffs in a vehicle without doors, seat belts or restraints.

Summary of this case from Robinson v. Zembrano

recognizing that prisoner may be able to allege deliberate indifference when he was injured from fall out of a vehicle while transported in handcuffs in a vehicle without doors, seat belts or restraints

Summary of this case from Thomas v. Rodriguez
Case details for

Dawson v. Lewis

Case Details

Full title:Lawrence DAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel A. LEWIS, Director…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 3, 2000

Citations

211 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir. 2000)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. Rodriguez

While the Ninth Circuit has yet to find an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim in the context of a…

Thomas v. Rodriguez

The Court finds that Plaintiff's allegations against Defendants Rodriguez and Colio survive screening under…

9 Citing Cases