1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.3d
  4. 67 F.3d
  5. 67 F.3d 708 (1995)
 

HIRSH v. JUSTICES OF SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

Nos. 94-55240, 94-55250, 94-55507 and 94-56335.

67 F.3d 708 (1995)

Stuart H. HIRSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUSTICES OF the SUPREME COURT OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Malcolm L. Lucas; Edward Panelli; Joyce Kennard; Armand Arabian; Marvin Baxter; Ronald M. George; and Dan Lungren, State Attorney General & acting personally for his private appointee's financial gain; State Bar of California; Ellen R. Peck, Employee of the State Bar as a claimed Judge; David C. Carr, Employee Prosecutor of State Bar Association, Defendants-Appellees. Ralph F. SERVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SUPREME COURT OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA; State Bar of California, Defendants-Appellees. Harold Lenard PERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JUSTICES OF the SUPREME COURT OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Malcolm Lucas, Chief; Edward Panelli; Stanley Mosk; Joyce Kennard; Armand Arabian; Marvin Baxter; Ronald George; and Dan Lungren; Lise Perlman, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Edmundo B. ESPINOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Malcolm LUCAS; Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of California; Kathryn Mickle; Stanley Mosk; Joyce Kennard; Armand Arabian; Marvin Baxter; Ronald George; and Dan Lungren, State Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Memorandum March 29, 1995.

Order and Opinion September 7, 1995.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Stuart H. Hirsh and Ralph F. Server, Beverly Hills, CA, Harold L. Perry, Oakland, CA, and Edmundo Espinoza, San Diego, CA, in pro per, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert M. Sweet, Marina Del Rey, CA (argued), and Mark Torres-Gil, Office of General Counsel, State Bar of California, San Francisco, CA, for defendants-appellees.

Damon M. Connolly, Deputy Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for defendants-appellees Justices of the California Supreme Court and Attorney General Daniel E. Lungren.

Before: BROWNING and ROBERT R. BEEZER, Circuit Judges, and HAGGERTY, District Judge.

ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed March 29, 1995, is redesignated as a per curiam opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Facing pending attorney disciplinary proceedings in California, each appellant filed suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of various constitutional rights. The district court granted the government's motions to dismiss. We affirm.

I. Background

A. The California...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases