Horst Schmidt v. State of Nevada

60 F.3d 834 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Horst SCHMIDT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF NEVADA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-15022. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 6, 1995. * Decided July 7, 1995. Before: FLETCHER, KOZINSKI, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Horst Schmidt appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action in which he alleged that (1) Nevada's adversarial system of civil litigation violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it favors those who can afford legal representation and (2) Nevada's system of allowing offers of judgment, which, under certain circumstances, provides for costs and attorney's fee shifting also violates the equal protection clause. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person…