Miller v. Makuch

Full title: Mary Arleen MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rance MAKUCH; et al.…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 18, 2001

8 F. App'x 665 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

8 Fed.Appx. 665 (9th Cir. 2001) Mary Arleen MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rance MAKUCH; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-16545. D.C. No. CV-00-00323-PGR. 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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 Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding.

Page 666.

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.

Mary Arleen Miller appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing her action against a municipal court judge, the Page, Arizona city attorney, the city manager, and an animal control officer after she was issued a citation on account of crowing by her rooster in violation of a municipal ordinance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir.1997). The district court cannot dismiss a complaint unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that Miller can prove no set of facts in support of her claims that would entitle her to relief. See id.

We affirm the district court for the reasons stated in the district court's July 18, 2000 order.

AFFIRMED.