Ida Mae Williams Lewis, Plaintiff-appellant, v. California Supreme Court; Jack Runnion; Jones, Clifford,mcdevitt, Naekel & Johnson; Hinton & Pashkowski, Peterhinton; Hinton & Alfert; Michael Mccabb; John Hill;hill, Schwartz & Stenson; Paul Frassetto; Martin &frassetto Belzer, Jacki, Katzen, Hulchiy, Murray & Balamuth;richard Bridgman, Defendants-appellees, 107 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1997)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 107 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1997) Submitted Jan. 21, 1997. *Decided Jan. 27, 1997

Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM^**

Ida Mae Williams Lewis appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing for failure to state a claim Lewis' original complaint and first amended complaint against the California Supreme Court, her former attorneys, and others; and the district court's order refusing to file her second amended complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction. We affirm for the reasons set forth in the May 23, 1996 Order dismissing the action with leave to amend and in the June 28, 1996 Order directing that the second amended complaint not be filed.

AFFIRMED.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.