Gary Labranch, Plaintiff-appellant, v. James H. Gomez; Bonnie Garibay; N. Burke; Ana M.olivarez, Warden; Edward Alamedia; L. Williams;s. Bruce; J. Arceo; J. Tynes; W.olmstead; R.l. French,defendants-appellees, 124 F.3d 211 (9th Cir. 1997)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 124 F.3d 211 (9th Cir. 1997) Submitted Sept. 8, 1987. **Decided Sept. 12, 1997

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. CV-96-99367-WBS; William B. Shubb, Senior Judge, Presiding

Before: HALL, BRUNETTI, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM* 

Gary Wayne LaBranch, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by restricting the amount of property inmates may keep in their cells We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992), and we affirm for the reasons stated in magistrate's findings and recommendations filed April 16, 1996.

To the extent that Labranch contends that he is unable to exercise his First Amendment right to redress grievances, this claim is also frivolous because LaBranch has not demonstrated an actual "case or controversy" invoking federal court jurisdiction. See Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 13 (1972).

AFFIRMED.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See 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.