Shelly Hart v. Thomas Falls

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 4, 202423-55280California642 words

Opinion

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 4 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHELLY HART, No. 23-55280

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-07282-CJC-E

v.

MEMORANDUM*

THOMAS C. FALLS; PAUL

BACIGALUPO; ERIC TAYLOR;

FREDERICK RAYMOND BENNETT III;

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR

COURT, for the State of California; DOES, 1-25, Inclusive,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 29, 2024**

Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Shelly Hart appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Hart’s requests for oral argument, set forth in the opening and reply briefs, are denied. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging…

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.