You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Lee v. Wiseman

Citation: 13 F. App'x 539Docket: No. 00-17062; D.C. No. CV-97-06015-OWW

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; June 21, 2001; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Kenneth Duane Lee, a prisoner in California, appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants regarding his claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference. The appeal falls under the jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and the court reviews the summary judgment de novo. The appellate court affirms the judgment based on the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations from July 14, 2000, which were adopted by the district court’s order on September 25, 2000. Lee's additional arguments were considered but ultimately rejected. On January 22, 2001, he received permission for funding under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the Clerk is instructed to update the docket to indicate Lee’s in forma pauperis status. The court notes that this decision is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in future cases, except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Adoption of Magistrate Judge's Findings

Application: The appellate court affirms the district court's judgment based on the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations.

Reasoning: The appellate court affirms the judgment based on the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations from July 14, 2000, which were adopted by the district court’s order on September 25, 2000.

Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Application: The appellate court reviews the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants under the jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Reasoning: The appeal falls under the jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and the court reviews the summary judgment de novo.

Non-Publication of Decision

Application: The court specifies that this decision is not intended for publication and may only be cited in limited circumstances as allowed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Reasoning: The court notes that this decision is not intended for publication and cannot be cited in future cases, except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Prison Litigation Reform Act Funding

Application: Lee was granted permission for funding under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, allowing him to proceed in forma pauperis.

Reasoning: On January 22, 2001, he received permission for funding under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the Clerk is instructed to update the docket to indicate Lee’s in forma pauperis status.

Standard of Review for Summary Judgment

Application: The court reviews the district court's summary judgment de novo, indicating a thorough reconsideration of the case without deference to the lower court's decision.

Reasoning: The court reviews the summary judgment de novo.