Shelly Hart v. Thomas Falls
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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…