Case Name: Natalie DURANTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NEVADA; Community College of Southern Nevada; Arlie J. Stops, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-12-11
Citations: 22 F. App'x 857
Docket Number: No. 00-16753; D.C. No. CV-00-00260-KJD/LRL
Parties: Natalie DURANTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NEVADA; Community College of Southern Nevada; Arlie J. Stops, Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 857–857

Head Matter:
Natalie DURANTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NEVADA; Community College of Southern Nevada; Arlie J. Stops, Defendants—Appellees.
No. 00-16753.
D.C. No. CV-00-00260-KJD/LRL.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2001.
Decided Dec. 11, 2001.
Before HUG, D.W. NELSON and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
In the Ninth Circuit, no three-judge panel has the power to overrule an earlier decision of any other three-judge panel. United States v. Gay, 967 F.2d 322, 327 (9th Cir.1992). However, this is exactly what Durante asks us to do: overrule a 1999 case that clearly controls the result here. See Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir.1999). Because Dittman makes it clear that Durante has no private right of action against any of the defendants directly under the Privacy Act or through § 1983, id. at 1026, 1029, we must deny the appeal.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.