Summary
finding sufficient evidence to warrant an evidentiary hearing on competence, despite the opinions of two contemporaneous psychological experts that the habeas petitioner was competent at the time of his trial, because such experts "had not been retained to make that specific determination"
Summary of this case from Rohan ex rel. Gates v. BroomfieldOpinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4.
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 (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)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 Idaho, D.C. No. CV-93-00081-EJL; Edward J. Lodge, District Judge, Presiding.
D.Idaho
AFFIRMED.
Before: PREGERSON, NORRIS, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
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.
Lacey Mark Sivak, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) for abuse of discretion, Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992), and affirm.
With respect to Sivak's allegations about lost legal property, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the claims as precluded by res judicata. The district court also did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Sivak's access to courts claims as frivolous because they lacked an arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 321 (1989).
AFFIRMED.