Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Duane Belanus v. Phil Clark

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 5, 2015No. 12-35952Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFernandez, Circuit Judge

I agree with much of what the majority says. I specifically agree with parts I, II and III of the majority opinion. The parts with which I do not entirely agree are IV, V and VI.

A. As to part IV, I think it is fair to assume that we all agree that “[a] district *1031court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’ ” Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir.2012); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.2012).

So where do I diverge from my colleagues? Well,…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Wilhelm v. RotmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  2. Javiad Akhtar v. J. MesaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  3. Coleman v. TollefsonSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
  4. Hardin v. StraubSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API