Unpublished Disposition, 880 F.2d 1323 (9th Cir. 1989)
Annotate this CaseLillian R. ROTH, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.COUNTY OF NEVADA, CONSOLIDATED WITH ANNE HALL, DOES I-L,Defendant-Appellee.
No. 87-2552.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 5, 1989.Decided July 26, 1989.
Before SNEED, ALARCON and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
We affirm the district court's dismissal of Roth's amended complaint for two reasons. First, Roth may not appeal rulings of the California courts to either the federal district court or to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider such an appeal. Allah v. Superior Court, 871 F.2d 887, 890-91 (9th Cir. 1989).
Second, Roth failed to plead a cognizable federal claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, and 1985. Even construing her pro se complaint liberally to afford her any benefit of the doubt, see Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc), no allegations show that the conduct complained of was committed by anyone acting under color of state law and that this conduct deprived Roth of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. See Parrott v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981).
Therefore, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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
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.
