Richard Canatella v. City & County of San Francisco Contra Costa County Pamela Wilson Levin Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney

74 F.3d 1245 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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 CANATELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; Contra Costa County; Pamela Wilson Levin; Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-16571. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 11, 1996. * Decided Jan. 16, 1996. Before: LAY, ** GOODWIN and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM *** 2 Attorney Richard Canatella appeals the district court's dismissal of his claim brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and denial of leave to file a second amended complaint. The central allegation in his complaint is that various defendants violated his due process right to fair trials on the issue of sanctions by defaming him in an August 1992 newspaper article appearing in The Recorder, entitled Firing at Every Target in Sight, which he alleges was circulated to state and federal judges before whom the sanctions motions were pending. Canatella…