Olson v. California Adult Authority
| Citation | 423 F.2d 1326 |
| Decision Date | 18 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 24635.,24635. |
| Parties | Daniel OLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA ADULT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Daniel Olson, in pro. per.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., State of California, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLIN, KOELSCH and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.
Certiorari Denied May 18, 1970. See 90 S.Ct. 1717.
Daniel Olson, appellant herein, a California state prisoner, filed a civil rights action against the California Adult Authority in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He complains that he has not been released on parole and that the rules of the California Adult Authority governing hearings before the parole board deny him due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The district court dismissed the action with prejudice on the ground that the "plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the named defendant." We agree.
Treating the action as one under the civil rights statutes, the California Adult Authority is not a "person" within the meaning of the civil rights act. Bennett v. People of State of California, 406 F.2d 36 (9th Cir. 1969); Allison v. California Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822 (9th Cir., Dec. 11, 1969).
Treating the action as an application for habeas corpus relief, the district court lacked jurisdiction because the action did not name as a defendant the person having custody over appellant. Morehead v. California, 339 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1964).
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Surowitz v. NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM
...981, 91 S.Ct. 1194, 28 L.Ed.2d 333 (1971) (Regents of State University a corporate body not a "person"); Olson v. California Adult Authority, 423 F.2d 1326 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 398 U. S. 914, 90 S.Ct. 1717, 26 L.Ed.2d 78 (1970) (California Adult Authority not a "person"); ......
-
West v. State of Louisiana
...hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs. 1 See Olson v. California Adult Authority, 9 Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 1326, cert. denied, 1970, 398 U.S. 914, 90 S.Ct. 1717, 26 L.Ed.2d 78; Mihailoviki v. California, 9 Cir. 1966, 364 F.2d 80......
-
Billiteri v. U.S. Bd. of Parole
...named as a respondent in the proceedings. The Board of Parole, which was so named, was not Billiteri's custodian. Olson v. California Adult Authority, 423 F.2d 1326 (9 Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 914, 90 S.Ct. 1717, 26 L.Ed.2d 78 (1970). There are, to be sure, circumstances where a parole......
-
Samuel v. University of Pittsburgh
...holding in Monroe v. Pape, supra is that since such state instrumentalities as the California Adult Authority (Olson v. California Adult Authority, 423 F.2d 1326 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied 398 U.S. 914, 90 S.Ct. 1717, 26 L.Ed. 2d 78) and the Pennsylvania Board of Parole (Taylor v. Board ......