Opinion of the Court — Williams v. Superior Court

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: June 17, 2002
Case: Williams v. Superior Court
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM ** April Williams appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim her action alleging that the Stanislaus County Superior Court violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Rehabilitation Act, and 14th Amendment when it declined to appoint her counsel in a civil action despite her partial mental handicap. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001). The district court properly determined that Williams’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims fail because she did not allege that she was denied appointed counsel on the basis of her disability. See Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir.1997). The district court properly determined that Williams’s 14th Amendment claim was fatally flawed because a court is not considered a “person” under the law. See Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir.1987). For these reasons, the district court properly determined that amendment of Willia…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.