Carrigan

Carrigan v. California State Legislature

Good Law
263 F.2d 560·1 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 43
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 28, 1959No. 16189California3,007 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Barnes, J.

On May 22, 1958, Mrs. Grace Carri-gan, in propria persona, filed a complaint in the district court against the defendants named above in the caption.

This complaint was entitled:

The complaint named only Mrs. Grace Carrigan as plaintiff-—in the heading showing appearances of counsel; in the title of the action; in the body of the complaint alleging the jurisdictional facts, 1 and elsewhere throughout the complaint. Mrs. Carrigan signed the complaint as the plaintiff. 2 Below her signature there appears the following:

Most, although not all, subsequent documents, whether prepared by defendants and directed to Mrs. Carrigan or prepared by Mrs. Carrigan and directed to her opponents, refer to but one plaintiff, 4 although the husband adds a note to many, saying he desires Mrs. Carrigan “to handle the case in Court because I feel she understands the procedure.”

The minutes of the district court of July 7th, 1958 and July 14th, 1958 show only that Mrs. Carrigan appears for herself, “in pro. per.”

On July 7th, 1958, the district court heard the motion of defendants Dr. Frederick K. Amerongen and Zenith National Insurance Company to dismiss the complaint and informally granted the…

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.