Case Name: Dennis Henry HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine LEISCH, Maricopa County Attorney; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-04-18
Citations: 8 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 99-17547; D.C. No. CV-98-00187-SMM
Parties: Dennis Henry HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine LEISCH, Maricopa County Attorney; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 8
Pages: 651–652

Head Matter:
Dennis Henry HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Catherine LEISCH, Maricopa County Attorney; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 99-17547.
D.C. No. CV-98-00187-SMM.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 9, 2001.
Decided April 18, 2001.
Before CANBY, KOZINSKI, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dennis H. Hudson appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violation of his right to due process in the seizure and forfeiture of his property. We review de novo and affirm. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); New Alaska Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298, 1300, 1305 (9th Cir.1989); see also Howland v. State, 169 Ariz. 293, 818 P.2d 1169, 1172-73 (1991).
We reject Hudson's remaining contentions as meritless and deny all pending motions.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.