Legal Opinion
George v. Pacific-CSC Work Furlough
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 31, 1996No. 94-56098PublishedCited by 62 opinions
1Per curiam
George brought six claims against his former employer, Pacifie-CSC Work Furlough Facility a/k/a Pacific Placement Facility (Pacific). The first two were federal pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court ordered George to amend these claims to allege recognizable state action. George failed to do so within the specified time period, and the court dismissed the two federal claims on the pleadings. It declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining four state law claims. George appeals from the dismissal. The district court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. We…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- West v. AtkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. DoyleSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Flagg Bros., Inc. v. BrooksSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Blum v. YaretskySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- Johnson v. KnowlesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- Cornish v. Correctional Services Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2005
- Lee v. KatzCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Ricotta v. State of CaliforniaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1998
- Rhiannon Nugent v. Spectrum Juvenile Justice Servs.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2023
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.