Legal Opinion
Mizkun v. Blanas
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 4, 2001No. 00-16466; D.C. No. CV-99-01962-WBS/PANPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
David Mizkun (“Mizkun”) appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant Vid Zupan (“Zupan”) repeatedly offered false information to the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department accusing Mizkun of drug related activities due to ethnic or religious animosity, and that Sheriff Lou Blanas (“Blanas”) and Deputy Sheriff Constance Norman (“Norman”) failed to investigate Zupan for doing so. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal *840Rule of Civil…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Flagg Bros., Inc. v. BrooksSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Clifton Redman v. County of San Diego Capt. Richard Beall Lt. Robert Witcraft Sgt. Dan Canfield Deputy Gene Turner, and Does I Through Xx, InclusiveCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Jack Allen v. City of Beverly HillsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Kenneth E. Sutton, Jr. v. Providence St. Joseph Medical Center, a California Non-Profit CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bracho v. HernandezDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2020