Olson v. California Adult Authority
9th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025(HC) Treon v. Federal Bureau of Prisons E.D. Cal.
- 2025Delbert Smith v. State of California E.D. Cal.
- 2025(HC) Collins v. On Habeas Corpus E.D. Cal.
- 2024(HC) Diaz v. State of California E.D. Cal.
- 2024(HC) Pacheco v. Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District E.D. Cal.
- 2024(HC)Patton v. Wasco State Prison E.D. Cal.
- 2024(HC) Calloway, Jr. v. The People of the State of California E.D. Cal.
- 2024(HC) Flores v. The People E.D. Cal.
- 2024(HC) Rollarson v. On Habeas Corpus E.D. Cal.
- 2024(HC) Medina v. On Habeas Corpus E.D. Cal.
Cites 3 cases
- Bennett v. California
- Allison v. California Adult Authority
- Morehead v. California
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Daniel OLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA ADULT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges
- Before HAMLIN, KOELSCH and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges.
Attorneys
- Daniel Olson, in pro. per.
- Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., State of California, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Daniel Olson, appellant herein, a California state prisoner, filed a civil rights action against the California Adult Authority in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He complains that he has not been released on parole and that the rules of the California Adult Authority governing hearings before the parole board deny him due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The district court dismissed the action with prejudice on the ground that the “plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the named defendant.” We agree.
Treating the action as one under the civil rights statutes, the California Adult Authority is not a “person” within the meaning of the civil rights act. Bennett v. People of State of California, 406 F.2d 36 (9th Cir. 1969); Allison v. California Adult Authority, 419 F.2d 822 (9th Cir., Dec. 11, 1969).
Treating the action as an application for habeas corpus relief, the district court lacked jurisdiction because the action did not name as a defendant the person having custody over appellant. Morehead v. California, 339 F.2d 170 (9th Cir. 1964).
Judgment affirmed.