Rux v. Sarvis

32 F.3d 572 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Robert RUX, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Hazel SARVIS; John Doe Sarvis, husband & wife, individually and the marital community composed thereof; Julian C. Dewell; Jane Doe Dewell, husband & wife, individually and the marital community composed thereof; Christopher Knapp; Walter Webster, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-36753. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 3, 1994. * Decided Aug. 8, 1994. Before: WRIGHT, KOZINSKI and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Robert Rux appeals a district court order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. The court also ordered Rux to pay the defendants' costs and attorney's fees and ordered Rux's attorney, Donald J. Koler, to pay $1,000 to defendant Sarvis. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and affirm. 3 We review de novo the district court's…