Ashanti v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Corp.

2 F. App'x 778
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 24, 2001
DocketNo. 00-16104
StatusPublished

This text of 2 F. App'x 778 (Ashanti v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Corp.) 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
Ashanti v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Corp., 2 F. App'x 778 (9th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM2

Askia S. Ashanti, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A as frivolous. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a dismissal of a complaint as frivolous, see James v. [779]*779Madison St. Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 27 n. 1 (9th Cir.1997) (per curiam), and we affirm.

Ashanti contends that his allegation of the existence of a contract between the defendant tobacco companies and the prison for the sale of cigarettes renders the defendants state actors. This contention lacks merit. The fact that a private firm receives revenues from the government does not by itself provide a basis for holding that the firm is a state actor. See Vincent v. Trend W. Technical Corp., 828 F.2d 563, 567-68 (9th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

James v. Madison Street Jail
122 F.3d 27 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Vincent v. Trend Western Technical Corp.
828 F.2d 563 (Ninth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 F. App'x 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashanti-v-rj-reynolds-tobacco-corp-ca9-2001.