Clinton v. Los Angeles County, 24671.
| Decision Date | 27 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24671.,24671. |
| Citation | 434 F.2d 1038 |
| Parties | Richard H. CLINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, State of California, its District Attorney and Deputies, Evelle J. Younger, Mt. Compton, James Koltz, Melvin Sacks, and their assurors by law, Aetna Cas. Ins. Co., a Connecticut corporation, New Hampshire Ins. Co., Inc., a New Hampshire corporation, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Richard H. Clinton, in pro. per.
Evelle J. Younger, Dist. Atty., John Tucker, of Rathbone, King & Seeley, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLEY, ELY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Richard H. Clinton appeals from a dismissal by the district court, on its own motion and without notice and hearing, of his complaint for damages under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
It is now well established that the district court did not follow the proper procedure in dismissing the complaint. Potter v. McCall, (9th Cir. November 4, 1970), 433 F.2d 1087; Dodd v. Spokane County, 393 F.2d 330 (9th Cir. 1969); Armstrong v. Rushing, 352 F.2d 836 (9th Cir. 1965); Harmon v. Superior Court, 307 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1962).
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the district court in order that it may follow the procedure outlined in the above-cited cases.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. Musick
...justify by-passing that right. Appellant is entitled to have process issued and served, and to be heard. See also Clinton v. Los Angeles County, 434 F.2d 1038 (9th Cir. 1970), Brown v. Strickler, 422 F.2d 1000 (6th Cir. 1970). A similar rule has been followed by this court in cases involvin......
-
Boag v. Boies
...relief could be granted, it would be necessary to reverse. See Armstrong v. Rushing, 352 F.2d 836 (9th Cir. 1965); Clinton v. Los Angeles County, 434 F.2d 1038 (9th Cir. 1970), and other decisions cited in But what was pending before the district court was plaintiff's motion to proceed in f......