Naimish D. Parikh v. Wendell Kaipo Huddy Bradley R. Pulice

980 F.2d 738 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Naimish D. PARIKH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Wendell Kaipo HUDDY; Bradley R. Pulice, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-15058. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 13, 1992. * Decided Dec. 2, 1992. Before CHOY, SNEED and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Naimish D. Parikh appeals pro se this district court's dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. The district court dismissed Parikh's complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . We affirm. 3 Parikh filed a civil rights complaint against state court judge Wendell Kaipo Huddy and Bradley R. Pulice, Judge Huddy's law clerk, claiming that their refusal to file his Hawaii Rule of Penal Procedure 35 motion to correct an alleged illegal sentence had denied him "access to the courts which was necessary for the proper adjudication of [his] claims (colorable or not)." 4 "To make…