Case Name: John Frederick HARDNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas CAREY; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-05
Citations: 286 F. App'x 503
Docket Number: No. 07-16901
Parties: John Frederick HARDNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas CAREY; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 503–504

Head Matter:
John Frederick HARDNEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Thomas CAREY; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-16901.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 25, 2008.
Filed Aug. 5, 2008.
John Frederick Hardney, Represa, CA, pro se.
Kasey E. Jones, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
On May 30, 2008, this court concluded that, to the extent a certificate of appeala-bility is required in this appeal, the request for a certificate of appealability is denied. By the same order, the court directed appellant to show cause, within 21 days, why this appeal should not be summarily affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court in its September 28, 2007 order.
To the extent appellant's response to the court's order to show cause seeks clarification of the district court's September 28, 2007 order, the request is granted. Our review of the district court's order reflects that the district court dismissed district court case no. CIV-S-06-0613.
Further, a review of the record and appellant's response 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).
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.