Steven E. Richfield v. State of California

19 F.3d 29 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Steven E. RICHFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of California, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-16143. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 23, 1994. * Decided March 24, 1994. Before: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and TROTT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Steven E. Richfield appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action against the State of California for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and review de novo. Harrison v. Hickel, 6 F.3d 1347, 1352 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. 3 Richfield, who lives in a recreational vehicle with his family, brought an action against the State of California alleging that because he does not have a fixed place of residence, the State of California has denied him and his family various rights, including the right to vote and the right to send his…