James M. Saathoff v. E. John Whelan Charles Hulbert

81 F.3d 169 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. James M. SAATHOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E. John WHELAN; Charles Hulbert, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-16993. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 13, 1996. Decided March 21, 1996. Before: CHOY, BEEZER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 James Saathoff appeals a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. Saathoff alleges the defendants, California state employees, conspired to violate his civil rights when the state exercised its power of eminent domain to take property in which Saathoff claimed a life estate. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. 3 * There have been six previous state court actions regarding the land at issue. 4 In 1977, the state of California filed eminent domain proceedings to acquire land from Emmett Zippe, the record owner. Zippe conveyed the land to the state in 1978. The state did not name Saathoff as…