Ervin Charles St. Amand v. Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners

46 F.3d 1144 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Ervin Charles ST. AMAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-16755. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted: Oct. 20, 1994. * Decided: Feb. 1, 1995. Before: CHOY, SKOPIL, and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Ervin Charles St. Amand, a California state prisoner, 1 appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for failure to state a claim. St. Amand contends that the district court erred in finding that the Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners ("Parole Board") was immune from suit and in refusing to join the claims of other inmates similarly situated. We REVERSE and REMAND. 3 St. Amand initiated his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 claim against the Parole Board after being denied parole on two prior appearances before the board. St. Amand claims that, on both occasions, the Parole Board denied his…