Wallen v. Rhay, 20246.
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
| Citation | Wallen v. Rhay, 354 F.2d 241 (9th Cir. 1966) |
| Decision Date | 07 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 20246.,20246. |
| Parties | Neil C. WALLEN, Appellant, v. B. J. RHAY, Warden, et al., Appellees. |
Neil C. Wallen, in pro. per.
John J. O'Connell, Atty. Gen., Olympia, Wash., for appellee.
Before BARNES, KOELSCH and BROWNING, Circuit Judges.
The brief for appellant received December 16, 1965, is ordered filed.
In this civil rights case, brought by a state prisoner against the warden and several other prison officials, the District Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint without leave to amend.
Although the complaint fails to state a claim, we are clear that the plaintiff should have been given the right to amend. The cause of action is remanded so that he may amend.
Cf. Armstrong v. Rushing, 352 F.2d 836, 9th Cir., decided November 15, 1965.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Dodd v. Spokane County, Washington
...to at least submit a written argument in opposition thereto. See Armstrong v. Rushing, 9 Cir., 352 F.2d 836, 837. See also, Wallen v. Rhay, 9 Cir., 354 F.2d 241; Harmon v. Superior Court, 9 Cir., 307 F.2d 796, Coming to the merits of the dismissal, the reason given by the district court for......