Burgess v. City and County of San Francisco

Full title: Nathan BURGESS, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 10, 2002

49 F. App'x 122 (9th Cir. 2002)

Opinion

49 Fed.Appx. 122 (9th Cir. 2002) Nathan BURGESS, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants--Appellees. No. 02-15230. D.C. No. CV-01-03652-SI. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Oct. 10, 2002

Submitted Oct. 7, 2002. ^*

* This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Susan Yvonne Illston, District Judge, Presiding.

Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Nathan Burgess appeals pro se the district court's Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal without leave to amend of his complaint against the City and County of San Francisco and Court Clerk Alan Carlson.

The district court correctly dismissed Burgess's first amended complaint because he failed to allege a violation of any constitutional right pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 and because 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242 are criminal statutes which cannot form the basis for a civil suit, Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.1980). The district court correctly held that Burgess failed to state a claim under any of the other statutes raised in his complaint.

AFFIRMED.