Chance v. Marshall

Full title: David CHANCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Warden, Bill J…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 17, 1998

141 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 1998)

Opinion

141 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 1998) David CHANCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Warden, Bill J. Bunnell, Warden of C.C.I., Tehachapi, California, L.R. Snider, Program Administrator, C.C.I. and California Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-15045. No. CV-90-00993-DLJ United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit March 17, 1998

Submitted March 10, 1998 ^**

** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See 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 (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)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. Lowell Jensen, District Judge, Presiding.

Before FLETCHER, BEEZER, and LEAVY, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

David Chance, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's sua sponte dismissal before issuance of summons of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendant prison officials alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand.

Because Chance's complaint has an arguable basis in law and fact and states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the district court improperly dismissed the complaint before issuance of the summons. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the district court for issuance of summons and service on defendants.

REVERSED and REMANDED.