Durante v. Nevada

Full title: Natalie DURANTE, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. State of NEVADA; Community…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 11, 2001

22 F. App'x 857 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

22 Fed.Appx. 857 (9th Cir. 2001) Natalie DURANTE, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. State of NEVADA; Community College of Southern Nevada; Arlie J. Stops, Defendants--Appellees. No. 00-16753. D.C. No. CV-00-00260-KJD/LRL. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. December 11, 2001

Submitted December 5, 2001. ^*

* This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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 District of Nevada Johnnie B. Rawlinson, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HUG, D.W. NELSON and HAWKINS, 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 may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

In the Ninth Circuit, no three-judge panel has the power to overrule an earlier decision of any other three-judge panel. United States v. Gay, 967 F.2d 322, 327 (9th Cir.1992). However, this is exactly what Durante asks us to do: overrule a 1999 case that clearly controls the result here. See Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir.1999). Because Dittman makes it clear that Durante has no private right of action against any of the defendants directly under the Privacy Act or through § 1983, id. at 1026, 1029, we must deny the appeal.

AFFIRMED.