Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number

Paul BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward JAGLES; Carl Sparks; Gray Davis; Eric McGillivary; Charles Wilson; Kern County Grand Jury of 1998, Defendants-Appellees.

238 F.3d 427 (9th Cir. 2000) Paul BELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward JAGLES; Carl Sparks; Gray Davis; Eric McGillivary; Charles Wilson; Kern County Grand Jury of 1998, Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-15151. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit September 21, 2000

Submitted September 11, 2000.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

D.C. No. CV-99-06619-AWI/LJO

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding.

Before WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

California state prisoner Paul Bell appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of his constitutional rights to due process and to a grand jury indictment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo a district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

We may affirm the district court's dismissal on any ground supported by the record. See Gemtel Corp. v. Community Redevelopment Agency, 23 F.3d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir.1994). Bell contends that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by his prosecution by information, rather than by grand jury indictment. This contention lacks merit because the due process clause does not compel the states to proceed by way of grand jury indictment when they initiate a prosecution. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 (1884); Morford v. Hocker, 394 F.2d 169, 170 (9th Cir.1968).

Bell's remaining contentions are rejected.

AFFIRMED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Bell v. Jagles
(Sep 21, 2000)