Nathan Burgess v. City of San Francisco Patricia Black Carol Roduit

5 F.3d 535 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Nathan BURGESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.; Patricia Black; Carol Roduit, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-16551. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 1, 1993. * Decided Sept. 13, 1993. Before: FLETCHER, POOLE, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Nathan Burgess appeals pro se the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) of his civil rights action. Burgess alleged that defendants deprived him of his constitutional rights by conspiring to deny him custody of his minor daughter, Nadja Burgess. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We review de novo, Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990), and affirm. 3 * Background 4 In October 1990, Nadja Burgess reported to her mother, Lana Ewing, that her father had physically…