Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

422 F.2d 860

Docket No. 23487.

Gilmore v. Gordon

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided March 4, 1970.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1970-03-04

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1970

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Jack Silver v. Fred R. Dickson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1970-03-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Charles S. Gilmore, in pro. per.

¶2Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, Sacramento, Cal., for appellees.

¶3Before KOELSCH and DUNIWAY, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON,* District Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6Charles S. Gilmore appeals from an order dismissing his action for $2,200,000 against the members of the California Adult Authority individually under the Civil Rights Act.1

¶7In 1955, Gilmore was convicted of grand theft in California. While on parole, he was convicted of first degree robbery and sentenced to a prison term from five years to life. After his robbery conviction, Gilmore’s parole was revoked. In 1968, the California Adult Authority reviewed Gilmore’s robbery sentence and modified it to life imprisonment.

¶8Gilmore contends that the members of the California Adult Authority violated his constitutional rights because they modified his sentence without giving him a proper hearing. He also contends that they acted without statutory authority because his robbery conviction was illegal.

¶9The members of the California Adult Authority are immune from actions for damages arising out of the performance of their official duties. Silver v. Dickson, 403 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1968).

¶10Affirmed.

/422/f2d/860 · .json · Public domain