Zochlinski v. Regents of the University of California

Ninth Circuit

Zochlinski v. Regents of the University of California

109 F. App'x 893

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 22, 2004·No. No. 03-15938; D.C. No. CV-02-02336-LKK/DAD·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Howard A. Zochlinski appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his in for-ma pauperis action for damages against the Regents of the University of California and a number of the University’s faculty, departments, and staff for frivolousness and failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

Because 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim,” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), the district court did not err in dismissing Zochlinski’s case after concluding that his amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court properly dismissed Zochlinski’s action without further leave to amend because Zochlinski failed to cure the deficiencies the Magistrate Judge identified in dismissing his original complaint. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir.1996).

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.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Howard A. Zochlinski appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his in for-ma pauperis action for damages against the Regents of the University of California and a number of the University’s faculty, departments, and staff for frivolousness and failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.

Because 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim,” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), the district court did not err in dismissing Zochlinski’s case after concluding that his amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court properly dismissed Zochlinski’s action without further leave to amend because Zochlinski failed to cure the deficiencies the Magistrate Judge identified in dismissing his original complaint. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177-79 (9th Cir.1996).

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.

Zochlinski v. Regents of the University of California, 109 F. App'x 893 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

109 F. App'x 893 (Zochlinski v. Regents of the University of California) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related