From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gilmore v. Gordon

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 4, 1970
422 F.2d 860 (9th Cir. 1970)

Opinion

No. 23487.

March 4, 1970.

Charles S. Gilmore, in pro. per.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, Sacramento, Cal., for appellees.

Before KOELSCH and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge.

Honorable Gus J. Solomon, United States District Judge, District of Oregon, sitting by designation.


Charles S. Gilmore appeals from an order dismissing his action for $2,200,000 against the members of the California Adult Authority individually under the Civil Rights Act.

In 1955, Gilmore was convicted of grand theft in California. While on parole, he was convicted of first degree robbery and sentenced to a prison term from five years to life. After his robbery conviction, Gilmore's parole was revoked. In 1968, the California Adult Authority reviewed Gilmore's robbery sentence and modified it to life imprisonment.

Gilmore contends that the members of the California Adult Authority violated his constitutional rights because they modified his sentence without giving him a proper hearing. He also contends that they acted without statutory authority because his robbery conviction was illegal.

The members of the California Adult Authority are immune from actions for damages arising out of the performance of their official duties. Silver v. Dickson, 403 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1968).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Gilmore v. Gordon

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 4, 1970
422 F.2d 860 (9th Cir. 1970)
Case details for

Gilmore v. Gordon

Case Details

Full title:Charles S. GILMORE, Appellant, v. Mr. GORDON and Mr. Lawson, Members…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 4, 1970

Citations

422 F.2d 860 (9th Cir. 1970)

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

We have carefully examined numerous authorities upon the subject of impeachment of witnesses by proof of drug…

Williams v. State

This rule is not applicable, however, where, as here, the prior inconsistent statement is not admissible in…