From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fassio v. Supreme Court of State of California

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 1, 2000
232 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2000)

Summary

holding that an intentional deprivation of three to five meals over the course of one month was not sufficiently severe

Summary of this case from Adderly v. Eidem

Opinion


232 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2000) Lisa FASSIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The SUPREME COURT OF the STATE OF CALIFORNIA; the Appeal Court of the State of California First Appellate District, Defendants--Appellees. No. 00-15114. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit August 1, 2000

Submitted July 17, 2000.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Charles A. Legge, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KOZINSKI, T.G. NELSON, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Lisa Fassio appeals pro se the district court's Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) dismissal of her complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Doe v. Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab., 131 F.3d 836, 838 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Fassio's complaint against the California Supreme Court and the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds, and because an arm of the state is not a "person" subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id. at 839; Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir.1987) (California state courts).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Fassio v. Supreme Court of State of California

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Aug 1, 2000
232 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2000)

holding that an intentional deprivation of three to five meals over the course of one month was not sufficiently severe

Summary of this case from Adderly v. Eidem

noting that the Alaska Supreme Court routinely refers to and follows the comments to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A when addressing issues of Alaska product liability law and that "where the Alaska Supreme Court has specifically declined to follow § 402A's Comments it has done so to adopt a rule of increased liability against manufacturers."

Summary of this case from Specter v. Tex. Turbine Conversions, Inc.
Case details for

Fassio v. Supreme Court of State of California

Case Details

Full title:Lisa FASSIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The SUPREME COURT OF the STATE OF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 1, 2000

Citations

232 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2000)

Citing Cases

Specter v. Tex. Turbine Conversions, Inc.

[(1)] the plaintiff proves that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect…

Sampson v. Ukiah Valley Med. Ctr.

But Roberts dealt only with the issue of whether improper motive was relevant to a § 1395dd(b) claim.…