Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google News
Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Leroy Stewart, Appellant, v. Vesta Minnick, Official Court Reporter, et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. - 409 F.2d 826
March 6, 1969
Leroy Stewart, in pro. per.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Wm. E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jack E. Weber, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Before BARNES, CARTER, and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We affirm the District Court's order dismissing appellant's civil rights complaint (42 U.S.C. § 1983).
Appellant sued the State of California, a court reporter, and a court clerk, complaining that the appellees refused to furnish him with that portion of his state criminal trial transcript containing the prosecutor's closing argument to the jury.
The State is not amenable to suit under the civil rights statute (Williford v. People of California (9th Cir. 1965) 352 F.2d 474); the acts charged to the individual appellees were acts performed in their capacity as quasi-judicial officers and they are clothed with judicial immunity (Cf. Peckham v. Scanlon (7th Cir. 1957) 241 F.2d 761); and the action was barred by res judicata in that appellant's prior civil rights complaint including the same grievance was dismissed and this court denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis on the ground that the appeal was frivolous. (Sarelas v. Sheehan (7th Cir. 1965) 353 F.2d 5).
The order is affirmed.