Case Name: Darrell L. EPINOSA; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Scott MARSHALL; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-15
Citations: 267 F. App'x 564
Docket Number: No. 07-16300
Parties: Darrell L. EPINOSA; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Scott MARSHALL; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 564–565

Head Matter:
Darrell L. EPINOSA; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Scott MARSHALL; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 07-16300.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2008.
Filed Feb. 15, 2008.
Darrel L. Epinosa, Arbuckle, CA, pro se.
Richard L. Manford, Esq., AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, Roberta L. Franklin, Downey Brand, LLP, Barkett, Gumpert & Reiner, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY 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
This is an appeal from the district court's June 14, 2007 order dismissing appellant's complaint with prejudice.
Appellees' request for judicial notice is granted.
We have received and reviewed "Appellant's Compliance with Order November 16, 2007 Re; [sic] Order to Show Cause", as well as appellees' response and appellant's reply. A review of the record, the opening brief, and the responses to the order to show cause indicate that 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).
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.