Hosner v. State of Ariz.

70 F.3d 1278 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Fred HOSNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE of Arizona; Gordon Alley, Superior Court Judge; Lawrence Flieschman, Superior Court Judge; City of Tucson; David West; Whitehill, West, Rowland, Christofel & Zickerman; Paul Rees, Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-15289. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 20, 1995. * Decided Nov. 24, 1995. Before: PREGERSON, NORRIS, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Fred Hosner appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. In his amended complaint, Hosner alleged that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to improperly transfer a worthless business and a lease for a structurally unsound building to Hosner. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and affirm in part and vacate and remand in part. 3 The district court properly dismissed Hosner's action for…