Case ID: f-appx_227/html/0614-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael W. WATKINS; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronald M. GEORGE, Justice, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, City of Sacramento, California; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 06-55345.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 4, 2007.
    Filed April 9, 2007.
    Michael W. Watkins, Nashville, TN, pro se.
    Michael D. Watkins, Carson, CA, pro se.
    Raymond L. Fitzgerald, Esq., AGCAOffice of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Dennis Popka, Esq., Middlebrooke Kaiser & Popka, Michael C.P. Clark, Alvarenga & Clark, San Bernardino, CA, Kris Patrick Thompson, Thompson Alessio and Maas, San Diego, CA, John M. Wilkerson, Esq., Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Riverside, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The court has reviewed appellees’ motion for summary affirmance, appellants’ opposition thereto, the record and appellants’ opening brief. The questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (stating standard). The district court properly dismissed appellants’ complaint.

Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.