Legal Opinion

Padilla v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 14, 2003No. 02-16795; D.C. No. CV-02-01260-GEB(PAN)Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Dina Padilla appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing her action, which alleged the California Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board deprived her of constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc., 143 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm because Padilla’s action effectively seeks review of a final, state court decision. See Fontana Empire Center, LLC v. City of Fontana, 307 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir.2002) (federal district courts lack…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
  2. Fontana Empire Center, Llc v. City Of FontanaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API