Case Name: Maurice P. OLIVIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-04-12
Citations: 426 F. App'x 578
Docket Number: No. 07-56106
Parties: Maurice P. OLIVIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 426
Pages: 578–579

Head Matter:
Maurice P. OLIVIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-56106.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2011.
Filed April 12, 2011.
Maurice P. Olivier, pro se.
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maurice P. Olivier, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his felony prosecution by information, rather than by grand jury indictment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Olivier's action because there is no constitutional right to be charged by way of a grand jury indictment rather than by information. See Morford v. Hocker, 394 F.2d 169, 170 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 392 U.S. 944, 88 S.Ct. 2329, 20 L.Ed.2d 1406 (1968) (holding that the grand jury requirement of the Fifth Amendment is not applicable to the states, and prosecution via an information is not unconstitutional).
We do not consider Olivier's arguments made for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir.1990).
Olivier's motions regarding Fed. R.App. P. 44(b) and requesting entry of judgment are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.