Case ID: f-appx_310/html/0955-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mark S. SOKOLSKY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Norm KRAMER, Executive Director, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-55198.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 12, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 30, 2009.
    Mark S. Sokolsky, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
    Attorney General, Esquire, Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Clerk shall change the docket to reflect appellant’s in forma pauperis status.

On September 26, 2008, this court ordered appellant to show cause as to why the district court’s judgment should not be summarily affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court’s order dated December 17, 2007.

A review of the record and appellant’s response to the court’s 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.

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