Case Name: Michael W. WATKINS; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronald M. GEORGE, Justice, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, City of Sacramento, California; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-09
Citations: 227 F. App'x 614
Docket Number: No. 06-55345
Parties: Michael W. WATKINS; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronald M. GEORGE, Justice, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, City of Sacramento, California; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 614–614

Head Matter:
Michael W. WATKINS; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ronald M. GEORGE, Justice, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, City of Sacramento, California; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-55345.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 4, 2007 .
Filed April 9, 2007.
Michael W. Watkins, Nashville, TN, pro se.
Michael D. Watkins, Carson, CA, pro se.
Raymond L. Fitzgerald, Esq., AGCAOffice of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, Dennis Popka, Esq., Middlebrooke Kaiser & Popka, Michael C.P. Clark, Alvarenga & Clark, San Bernardino, CA, Kris Patrick Thompson, Thompson Alessio and Maas, San Diego, CA, John M. Wilkerson, Esq., Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Riverside, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The court has reviewed appellees' motion for summary affirmance, appellants' opposition thereto, the record and appellants' opening brief. 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) (per curiam) (stating standard). The district court properly dismissed appellants' complaint.
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court's judgment.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.