Case Name: Richard H. CLINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, State of California, its District Attorney and Deputies, Evelle J. Younger, Mt. Compton, James Koltz, Melvin Sacks, and their assurors by law, Aetna Cas. Ins. Co., a Connecticut corporation, New Hampshire Ins. Co., Inc., a New Hampshire corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1970-11-27
Citations: 434 F.2d 1038
Docket Number: No. 24671
Parties: Richard H. CLINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, State of California, its District Attorney and Deputies, Evelle J. Younger, Mt. Compton, James Koltz, Melvin Sacks, and their assurors by law, Aetna Cas. Ins. Co., a Connecticut corporation, New Hampshire Ins. Co., Inc., a New Hampshire corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before HAMLEY, ELY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 434
Pages: 1038–1038

Head Matter:
Richard H. CLINTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY, State of California, its District Attorney and Deputies, Evelle J. Younger, Mt. Compton, James Koltz, Melvin Sacks, and their assurors by law, Aetna Cas. Ins. Co., a Connecticut corporation, New Hampshire Ins. Co., Inc., a New Hampshire corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 24671.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 27, 1970.
Richard H. Clinton, in pro. per.
Evelle J. Younger, Dist. Atty., John Tucker, of Rathbone, King & Seeley, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before HAMLEY, ELY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard H. Clinton appeals from a dismissal by the district court, on its own motion and without notice and hearing, of his complaint for damages under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
It is now well established that the district court did not follow the proper procedure in dismissing the complaint. Potter v. McCall, (9th Cir. November 4, 1970), 433 F.2d 1087; Dodd v. Spokane County, 393 F.2d 330 (9th Cir. 1969); Armstrong v. Rushing, 352 F.2d 836 (9th Cir. 1965); Harmon v. Superior Court, 307 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1962).
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the district court in order that it may follow the procedure outlined in the above-cited cases.