Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

99 F.3d 1147

Docket No. 96-55188.

Telstar v. Vea

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Oct. 7, 1996.* Decided Oct. 15, 1996.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1996-10-15

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 1998 · most notably United States v. Hyung Su Lee and Gun Ho Kim (1996), United States of America v. M Lennartz (1998)

30 federal appellate ·

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“found that the firearm in Count 3 was shorter than allowed by law simply because it made such a finding as to the firearm in Count 2. There is therefore no basis for sentencing Lennartz to more than five years on Count 3. We affirm the Amended Judgment. 20 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 1 The decision is referenced in a”

quoted by 1 later decision, including United States of America v. M Lennartz

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman · Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court of California

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-10-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Before: BEEZER, KOZINSKI, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

¶1

MEMORANDUM…

¶2

David Telstar appeals pro se the district court's orders denying him leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) in Telstar's action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Telstar's First Amended Complaint1 challenges the constitutionality of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1030 as applied during Superior Court divorce proceedings during which Telstar sought to set aside a default judgment against him. Telstar asserts that the Superior Court's order requiring him to post security pursuant to Section 1030 in the amount of $5,000 denied him meaningful access to the courts, equal protection, and due process of law, in violation of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

¶3

Because Telstar's claims are " 'inextricably intertwined' with the state court's rulings in a particular plaintiff's state case," Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, 23 F.3d 218, 221-22 (9th Cir.1994), the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983). The district court therefore properly denied Telstar leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to Section 1915(d).

AFFIRMED.2

*

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

1

Telstar lodged the First Amended Complaint with the district court along with a motion for reconsideration of the district court's denial of his initial motion to proceed in forma pauperis

2

Because of our disposition of this appeal, we do not consider the applicability, if any, of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996), to this appeal

/99/f3d/1147 · .json · Public domain