Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
04-15304 Memorandum April 4 2005 (Davidson v. Meehan)

04-15304 Memorandum April 4 2005 (Davidson v. Meehan)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 14|Likes:
Robert M. Davidson and his spouse Vanessa Komar appeal pro se the district court's judgment dismissing their action in which they alleged constitutional violations and various state-law claims against their former attorney and his law firm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We review de novo whether Younger abstention applies.

See U.S. Supreme Court Docket # 04-1687, Petition for Rehearing, filed on October 26, 2005, where it states, “The Ninth Circuit holdings in Davidson v. Meehan, 127 Fed. Appx. 312, have effectively adopted a per se rule which permits dismissal of all Section 1983 complaints against attorneys [and judges], thereby fostering [if not actually encouraging] the most egregious behavior by attorneys [and judges], even if unquestionably the result of pressures by the State. The Ninth Circuit held that privately-retained attorney and law firm cannot violate constitutional rights of clients. This ruling is certain to have been well received by the State Actors in the State Action.”
Robert M. Davidson and his spouse Vanessa Komar appeal pro se the district court's judgment dismissing their action in which they alleged constitutional violations and various state-law claims against their former attorney and his law firm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We review de novo whether Younger abstention applies.

See U.S. Supreme Court Docket # 04-1687, Petition for Rehearing, filed on October 26, 2005, where it states, “The Ninth Circuit holdings in Davidson v. Meehan, 127 Fed. Appx. 312, have effectively adopted a per se rule which permits dismissal of all Section 1983 complaints against attorneys [and judges], thereby fostering [if not actually encouraging] the most egregious behavior by attorneys [and judges], even if unquestionably the result of pressures by the State. The Ninth Circuit held that privately-retained attorney and law firm cannot violate constitutional rights of clients. This ruling is certain to have been well received by the State Actors in the State Action.”

More info:

Published by: Robert Davidson, M.D., Ph.D. on Aug 12, 2009
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/11/2014

pdf

text

original

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to
or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral
argument.See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT M. DAVIDSON; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
MICHAEL J. MEEHAN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-15304
D.C. No. CV-03-00580-FRZ
MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 23, 2005**
Before:
B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Robert M. Davidson and his spouse Vanessa Komar appeal pro se the
district court\u2019s judgment dismissing their action in which they alleged
FILED
APR 04 2005
CATHY A. CATTERSON, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->