Wonderwheel
Wonderwheel v. Medocino Superior Court
Opinion
Opinion
934 F.2d 325 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Alan Gregory WONDERWHEEL, M.L.V., John R. Weber, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MENDOCINO SUPERIOR COURT, California First Appellate District, Timothy O. Stoen, Velda G. Brady, Arthur L. Becktold, Joseph Becktold, Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-16229. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 11, 1991. * Decided May 30, 1991. Before HUG, POOLE and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** I. OVERVIEW 2 Plaintiff-appellants Alan Wonderwheel and John Weber ("Wonderwheel and Weber") appeal the district court's dismissal of their claims under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1983 and 1988. Wonderwheel and Weber brought suits against the Superior Court of California and the First Appellate District ("Judges"), and private parties Timothy Stoen, Velda Brady, and Arthur and Joseph Becktold ("Stoen, et al."). We affirm. A. Statute of Limitations 3 We review dismissal on statute of limitations grounds…