Case Name: Nathan BURGESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-10-10
Citations: 49 F. App'x 122
Docket Number: No. 02-15230; D.C. No. CV-01-03652-SI
Parties: Nathan BURGESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 49
Pages: 122–122

Head Matter:
Nathan BURGESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 02-15230.
D.C. No. CV-01-03652-SI.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 7, 2002.
Decided Oct. 10, 2002.
Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nathan Burgess appeals pro se the district court's Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal without leave to amend of his complaint against the City and County of San Francisco and Court Clerk Alan Carlson.
The district court correctly dismissed Burgess's first amended complaint because he failed to allege a violation of any constitutional right pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 and because 18 U.S.C. § 241 and § 242 are criminal statutes which cannot form the basis for a civil suit, Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir.1980). The district court correctly held that Burgess failed to state a claim under any of the other statutes raised in his complaint.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.