Kowalski v. Oregon State Bar

92 F.3d 1192, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28128, 1996 WL 441767
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 5, 1996
Docket95-35210
StatusUnpublished

This text of 92 F.3d 1192 (Kowalski v. Oregon State Bar) 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
Kowalski v. Oregon State Bar, 92 F.3d 1192, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28128, 1996 WL 441767 (9th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

92 F.3d 1192

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
John Richard KOWALSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
Bernard Otis Hooper; Thearl Eugene Dummitt, Plaintiffs,
v.
OREGON STATE BAR; Wade Bettis; Janet Pryce; Theodore
Kulongoski; Joseph V. Ochoa; Robert Lau; Wallace Carson,
Jr; Bill Bradsbury; Larry L. Campbell; Robert B. Abrams;
J.F. Olsen; Barbara Roberts; Does 1-25, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-35210.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 29, 1996.*
Decided Aug. 5, 1996.

Before: HUG, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

John Richard Kowalski, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his claims for lack of standing. After a de novo review of the record, see Crow Tribe of Indians v. Campbell Farming Corp., 31 F.3d 768, 769 (9th Cir.1994) cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1362 (1995), we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court order filed on July 25, 1994.

AFFIRMED.1

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See 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

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

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

Related

Crow Tribe of Indians v. Campbell Farming Corp.
31 F.3d 768 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 F.3d 1192, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28128, 1996 WL 441767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kowalski-v-oregon-state-bar-ca9-1996.