Case ID: f-appx_171/html/0543-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Dalton BELL, Plaintiff—Appellant, and Charles Stewart; et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT COURT OF TACOMA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 05-35289.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2006.
    
    Filed Feb. 24, 2006.
    James Dalton Bell, Terre Haute, IN, pro se.
    Charles Stewart, Sandy, OR, pro se.
    Baron C. Sheldahl, Esq, Office of the U.S. Attorney Mark O. Hatfield, John S. Ransom, Esq., Ransom & Blackmon, LLP, Susan M. Dunaway, Esq., Office of Multnomah County Attorneys, Mark R. Moline Fax, David A. Landrum, Esq., Office of the City Attorney, Duane A. Bosworth, III, Esq., Davis, Wright, Tremaine, Portland, OR, Jeffrey N. Riback, Esq., Office of the City Attorney, Vancouver, WA, Edward S. McGlone, III, Clackamas County Counsel, Oregon City, OR, Daniel R. Hamilton, Esq., Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Tacoma, WA, John A. Level, Esq., Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, Jonathan M. Radmacher, Esq., Trung D. Tu, McEwen Gisvold, LLP, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, GOODWIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

A review of the record and appellant’s response to the November 21, 2005 order to show cause indicates that 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).

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 may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.