James Sinclair v. Gloria Ella Spatocco, Alias Gloria E. Reed

452 F.2d 1213
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 23, 1972
Docket71-1905
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 452 F.2d 1213 (James Sinclair v. Gloria Ella Spatocco, Alias Gloria E. Reed) 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
James Sinclair v. Gloria Ella Spatocco, Alias Gloria E. Reed, 452 F.2d 1213 (9th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Dismissal by the District Court was not error.

Appellant’s allegations against his attorney do not amount to violation of his civil rights, giving rise to federal jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Services performed by an attorney in connection with a lawsuit do not constitute action under color of state law. Dyer v. Rosenberg, 434 F.2d 648 (9th Cir. 1970).

As to the remaining claims, the finding of the District Court that appellant was a citizen of California was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, diversity of citizenship did not exist. Nor was it error to refuse to defer determination until the issue could be submitted to a jury. The trial court has discretion to determine the jurisdictional facts itself. Har-Pen Truck Lines, Inc. v. Mills, 378 F.2d 705 (5th Cir. 1967); Seideman v. Hamilton, 275 F.2d 224 (3d Cir. 1960). See Gilbert v. David, 235 U.S. 561, 568, 35 S.Ct. 164, 59 L.Ed. 360 (1915). See also, 5 J. Moore, Federal Practice fl 38.36 (1971). We find no abuse of discretion under the facts of this ease.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
452 F.2d 1213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-sinclair-v-gloria-ella-spatocco-alias-gloria-e-reed-ca9-1972.