Legal Opinion

Rodney Capell v. James Gomez Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of the State of California

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided December 17, 1993No. 93-55496Published

1Opinion of the Court

15 F.3d 1083

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Rodney CAPELL, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

James GOMEZ; Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of the

State of California, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 93-55496.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 27, 1993.*

Decided Dec. 17, 1993.

Before: KILKENNY, SNEED, and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM**

2

Rodney Capell…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. Mark Hirsch HorodnerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
  2. Jose M. Lozada v. George Deeds, Warden Brian McKay Attorney General for the State of NevadaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
  3. Woods v. SheehanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API