Alvin Robert Alexander v. The California Court Director of Correction, Adult Authority

Ninth Circuit

Alvin Robert Alexander v. The California Court Director of Correction, Adult Authority

433 F.2d 360, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6586

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 6, 1970

Docket24599_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 433 F.2d 360 (Alvin Robert Alexander v. The California Court Director of Correction, Adult Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alvin Robert Alexander v. The California Court Director of Correction, Adult Authority, 433 F.2d 360, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6586 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Alexander appeals from an order denying him leave to file a Civil Rights Act complaint in forma pauperis, charging that the Adult Authority’s power to redetermine his sentence violates his constitutional rights.

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alexander leave thus to proceed. Alexander’s complaint did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief under the Civil Rights Act. (Weller v. Dickson (9th Cir. 1963) 314 F.2d 598, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845, 84 S.Ct. 97, 11 L.Ed.2d 72.) No facts are averred even suggesting that the Adult Authority’s actions in suspending or revoking his parole were arbitrary. (Dunn v. California Department of Corrections (9th Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 340.) No federal constitutional questions are raised by the complaint. (Sturm v. California Adult Au-

*361 thority (9th Cir. 1967) 395 F.2d 446.) Moreover, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not lie against an administrative agency. (Monroe v. Pape (1961) 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492.)

The order is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Alexander appeals from an order denying him leave to file a Civil Rights Act complaint in forma pauperis, charging that the Adult Authority’s power to redetermine his sentence violates his constitutional rights.

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Alexander leave thus to proceed. Alexander’s complaint did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a claim for relief under the Civil Rights Act. (Weller v. Dickson (9th Cir. 1963) 314 F.2d 598, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845, 84 S.Ct. 97, 11 L.Ed.2d 72.) No facts are averred even suggesting that the Adult Authority’s actions in suspending or revoking his parole were arbitrary. (Dunn v. California Department of Corrections (9th Cir. 1968) 401 F.2d 340.) No federal constitutional questions are raised by the complaint. (Sturm v. California Adult Au-

*361 thority (9th Cir. 1967) 395 F.2d 446.) Moreover, a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not lie against an administrative agency. (Monroe v. Pape (1961) 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492.)

The order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

433 F.2d 360, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 6586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvin-robert-alexander-v-the-california-court-director-of-correction-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack