Joseph Bernard Ponder v. Dianna Rodgers Ernest Smith

Good Law
26 F.3d 132·1994 WL 249993·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 21673
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 9, 199493-36028California823 words

Opinion

Opinion

26 F.3d 132 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Joseph Bernard PONDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dianna RODGERS; Ernest Smith, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-36028. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 24, 1994. * Decided June 9, 1994. Before: HUG, D.W. NELSON, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Oregon state prisoner Joseph Bernard Ponder appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of probation officials in Ponder's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action alleging that his civil rights were violated when probation officials refused to permit Ponder to attend church. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We affirm in part, vacate in part and remand for further proceedings. I. Default Judgment 3 Ponder contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for default judgment. We review the district court's denial of a motion for default judgment for an abuse of discretion. Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.