Groover v. County of San Diego Sheriff's Dept.

996 F.2d 1224 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Paul Steven GROOVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; City of San Diego Police Department; Drug Enforcement Agency; San Diego County District Attorney's Office, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-55794. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 8, 1993. * Decided June 14, 1993. Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Paul Steven Groover appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Groover contends that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint without notifying him of the deficiencies of the complaint, or giving him an opportunity to amend. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and review de novo. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621 , 623 (9th Cir.1988). 1 We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. 3…