Legal Opinion

Garber v. City of Los Angeles

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 29, 2008No. 07-55260PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Garber appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Garber’s second amended complaint because, even when liberally construed, it failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983. See Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (“To prevail on his section 1983 claim for…

2Cases cited6 opinions

Donald Robin BARREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tom HARRINGTON, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
Jesse J. Calhoun v. Donald N. Stahl James BrazeltonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
Ralph E. Thornton Cheryl A. Thornton v. City of St. Helens Warren Baker Brian LittleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
Foti v. City of Menlo ParkCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
Cabrera v. City of Huntington ParkCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998

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

3Cited by1 opinion

Cunningham v. University of HawaiiDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2023