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
Daniel Olson, Plaintiff-appellant, v. California Adult Authority, Defendant-appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 423 F.2d 1326
Feb. 2, 1970, Rehearing Denied March 20, 1970, CertiorariDenied May 18, 1970, See 90 S.Ct. 1717
Daniel Olson, in pro. per.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., State of California, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLIN, KOELSCH and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Olson, appellant herein, a California state prisoner, filed a civil rights action against the California Adult Authority in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He complains that he has not been released on parole and that the rules of the California Adult Authority governing hearings before the parole board deny him due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The district court dismissed the action with prejudice on the ground that the 'plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the named defendant.' We agree.
Treating the action as one under the civil rights statutes, the California Adult Authority is not a 'person' within the meaning of the civil rights act. Bennett v. People of State of California, 406 F.2d 36 (9th Cir. 1969); Allison v. California Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822 (9th Cir., Dec. 11, 1969).
Treating the action as an application for habeas corpus relief, the district court lacked jurisdiction because the action did not name as a defendant the person having custody over appellant. Morehead v. California,339 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1964).
Judgment affirmed.