Summary
affirming the district court's dismissal of such a claim for failure to comply with Rule 9(b)
Summary of this case from Conley v. FargoOpinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, D.C. No. CV-91-00060-JPV; John P. Vukasin, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.
N.D.Cal.
AFFIRMED.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carlos Gil Gomez appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by improper custody and national origin classifications. We conclude, following review of Gomez's amended complaint, that the district court correctly determined that even after amendment, Gomez could not state a cognizable constitutional claim against any named defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989) (Section 1915(d) gives federal courts "not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless"). Therefore, the district court is
AFFIRMED.
FN** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.