What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. Your task is to identify the state or territory in which the case was first heard. If the case began in the federal district court, consider the state of that district court. If it is a habeas corpus case, consider the state of the state court that first heard the case. If the case originated in a federal administrative agency, answer "not applicable". Answer with the name of the state, or one of the following territories: District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Panama Canal Zone, or "not applicable" or "not determined".

Opinion:
James F. ARMSTRONG, Appellant, v. Alec W. BROWN and Lester J. Gendron et al., Appellees.
No. 21977.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth -Circuit.
Dec. 7, 1967.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1968.
James F. Armstrong, in pro. per.
Roy E. Wolfe, County Counsel, Madera County, Madera, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES, HAMLEY and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is a second appeal in forma pauperis from a dismissal of appellant’s Civil rights complaint and cause of action, by which he sought “$100,000 damages, tax free,” from a California Justice Court Judge and a California County District Attorney for refusing to file a criminal complaint sought by appellant to have filed some nine years after the occurrence of the acts which it charged.
On the first appeal the district court, “on its own motion, and before issuance or service of process upon defendant, dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.” Armstrong v. Brown, 9 Cir., 352 F.2d 1023 (1965); Armstrong v. Rushing, 9 Cir., 352 F.2d 836 (1965). We therefore reversed, ordering that appellant was “entitled to have process issued and served, and to be heard.” (352 F.2d at 837.)
Appellant has had such relief. His matter was heard by a second judge (C.T. 149-50), and the complaint was dismissed with leave to amend. After motion by appellant to disqualify the judge so ruling against him, appellant filed an amended complaint, which was heard by a third judge, who held the proceeding “was utterly frivolous and malicious within the meaning of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d),” and hence dismissed the complaint and the cause of action. Stiltner v. Rhay, 9 Cir., 322 F.2d 314 (1963), Brown v. Brown, 9 Cir., 368 F.2d 992 (1966).
We affirm the dismissal.

Question: In what state or territory was the case first heard?

Choices:
not
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachussets
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New
New
New
New
North
North
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode
South
South
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Virgin
Puerto
District
Guam
not
Panama

Answer: 5