Edward E. Allen v. Josephine County Defense Lawyers

Good Law
972 F.2d 1336·1992 WL 207991·1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 27434
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 28, 199292-35079California540 words

Opinion

Opinion

972 F.2d 1336 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Edward E. ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSEPHINE COUNTY DEFENSE LAWYERS, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-35079. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 24, 1992. * Decided Aug. 28, 1992. Before BRUNETTI, RYMER and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Edward E. Allen appeals pro se the district court's Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim. Woodrum v. Woodard County, Okl., 866 F.2d 1121 , 1124 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm. 3 Generally, a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) should not be affirmed unless it is clear that the complaint could not be cured by amendment. Kelson v. City of Springfield, 767 F.2d 651, 656 (9th Cir.1985). However, "if it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts that could be proved," the district…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.