Hudson v. Leisch

Full title: Dennis Henry HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine LEISCH, Maricopa…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 18, 2001

8 F. App'x 651 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

8 Fed.Appx. 651 (9th Cir. 2001) Dennis Henry HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine LEISCH, Maricopa County Attorney; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 99-17547. D.C. No. CV-98-00187-SMM. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 18, 2001

Submitted April 9, 2001. ^*

* The 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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 Arizona Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI, and RYMER, 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Dennis H. Hudson appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violation of his right to due process in the seizure and forfeiture of his property. We review de novo and affirm. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); New Alaska Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298, 1300, 1305 (9th Cir.1989); see also Howland v. State, 169 Ariz. 293, 818 P.2d 1169, 1172-73 (1991).

Page 652.

We reject Hudson's remaining contentions as meritless and deny all pending motions.

AFFIRMED.