DANIEL OLSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CALIFORNIA ADULT AUTHORITY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the California Adult Authority is not a 'person' under the civil rights act and that the district court lacked jurisdiction for a habeas corpus action due to improper defendant.
A California state prisoner filed a civil rights action against the California Adult Authority, alleging denial of parole and due process violations. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Rights Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Olson, appellant herein, a California state prisoner, filed a civil rights action against the California Adult Authority in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He complains that he has not been released on parole and that the rules of the California Adult Authority governing hearings before the parole board deny him due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The district court dismissed the action with prejudice on the ground that the “plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the named defendant.” We agree.
Treating the action as one under the civil rights statutes, the California Adult Authority is not a “person” within the meaning of the civil rights act. Bennett v. People of State of California, 406 F. 2d 36 (9th Cir. 1969); Allison v. California Adult Authority, 419 F. 2d 822 (9th Cir., Dec. 11, 1969).
Treating the action as an application for habeas corpus relief, the district court lacked jurisdiction because the action did not name as a defendant the person having custody over appellant. Morehead v. California, 339 F. 2d 170 (9th Cir. 1964).
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Limmie West, III v. State OF La., 478 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
Billiteri v. United States Bd. OF Parole & Members of the United States Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 938 (2d Cir. 1976)
-
Fields v. State OF Alaska & William Huston, 524 F.2d 259 (9th Cir. 1975)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Morehead v. State OF Cal., 339 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1964)
- Bennett v. People OF the State OF Cal., 406 F.2d 36 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Allison v. Cal. Adult Auth., 419 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1969)