Richard Bowen v. Phil Rogers Len Smith John Cook, Joseph McNamara

Good Law
59 F.3d 174·1995 WL 354392·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23524
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 12, 199594-15457California704 words

Opinion

Opinion

59 F.3d 174 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Richard BOWEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Phil ROGERS; Len Smith; John Cook, Joseph McNamara, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-15457. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 6, 1995. * Decided June 12, 1995. Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Richard Bowen, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 civil rights action against Phil Rogers, Len Smith, John Cook and Joseph McNamara ("defendants") alleging that the defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by conducting an illegal search and seizure. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We review de novo, Miller v. Maxwell's Int'l. Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 585 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1049 (1994), and we affirm. 3 Bowen contends that the district court erred by dismissing his action as…

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.