Stanley Tysch v. David Michael Homsy Gary Hal Amsterdam Morton Gantman Gantman & Gantman

15 F.3d 1090 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Stanley TYSCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David Michael HOMSY; Gary Hal Amsterdam; Morton Gantman; Gantman & Gantman, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-56448. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 6, 1993. * Decided Dec. 22, 1993. Before: SNEED, NOONAN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Stanley Tysch appeals pro se the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for failure to state a claim. Tysch contends that David Homsy and Gary Amsterdam, attorneys who represented him, and Morton Gantman and Gantman & Gantman (collectively, the Gantmans), who represented Tysch's former wife in a state marital dissolution proceeding, conspired to violate his civil rights in connection with Homsy's action to collect fees for legal services. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Tysch contends that the district court erred by dismissing his action without leave to…