Albert Wilson v. Irvin

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 08-56409 · 2013-03-22 · Unpublished

Albert P. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IRVIN, Medical Technical Assistant; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Area: other
Panel: Harry Pregerson (author), Fletcher, Stephen R. Reinhardt

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALBERT P. WILSON, No. 08-56409 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:05-cv-01774-DMS- AJB v. IRVIN, Medical Technical Assistant; et MEMORANDUM * al., Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 12, 2013 ** Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Albert P. Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to effectuate service of process his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse and remand.

The district court erred in concluding that Wilson’s transfer from Calipatria State Prison deprived it of jurisdiction to issue a contempt citation and impose sanctions on the Calipatria State Prison litigation coordinator for failure to comply with its July 10, 2006 order granting in part and denying in part Wilson’s motion regarding service of process. See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966) (“There can be no question that courts have inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders through civil contempt.”).

The district court should strongly consider appointment of counsel on remand.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2 08-56409