Spencer Thomas v. City and County of San Francisco David J. Friedenberg

995 F.2d 233 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Spencer THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; David J. Friedenberg; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-16735. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 12, 1993. * Decided May 26, 1993. Before: HUG, WIGGINS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Spencer Thomas appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing sua sponte his action. Thomas filed his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 , 1985, and 1986 action against the City and County of San Francisco and several private individuals. Thomas claimed that his rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the fourteenth amendment were violated by the entry of a default judgment against him and that Municipal Court officers improperly handled his appeal. Thomas also claimed that the court officers and judges conspired with each other and with the private defendants in these acts. We have…