Burgess v. City and County of San Francisco

67 F.3d 305 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Nathan BURGESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; Frank Jordan, Mayor; John Newlin; Mike Coleman; Department of Parking and Traffic Control; Rudy Nothenberg; Pete Wilson, Governor, for the State of California, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-16217. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Sept. 5, 1995. * Decided Sept. 20, 1995. Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Nathan Burgess appeals pro se the district court's decision dismissing defendant Governor Pete Wilson for lack of jurisdiction and the court's subsequent decision abstaining from hearing Burgess's constitutional challenge to provisions of California's Vehicle Code governing parking violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and affirm. 3 We review de novo the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Carpenter v. Department of…