Richard Beveridge v. County of Santa Barbara City of Santa Barbara Thomas R. Adams James Slater William Gordon

988 F.2d 117 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Richard BEVERIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA; City of Santa Barbara; Thomas R. Adams; James Slater; William Gordon; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-55374. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 22, 1993. * Decided March 1, 1993. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, No. CV-91-4358-SVW; Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding. C.D.Cal. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART. Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER and CANBY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Richard Beveridge appeals pro se the district court's Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal with prejudice of his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. 3 * Standard of Review 4 We review de novo a district court's dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim…