Narrative Opinion Summary
Gregory Nemitz appeals the dismissal of his complaint by the district court, which was based on his failure to state a claim regarding a declaratory judgment related to alleged private property on asteroid 433 EROS. The appellate court affirms the district court's decision for the reasons outlined in the dismissal order dated April 26, 2004. The ruling is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Additionally, Nemitz's motions to convene an Article III court and to file an amicus brief are denied.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review of District Court Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal decision, indicating agreement with the lower court's reasoning as detailed in the dismissal order.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirms the district court's decision for the reasons outlined in the dismissal order dated April 26, 2004.
Declaratory Judgment Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint for failing to state a claim regarding the request for a declaratory judgment about alleged private property on an asteroid.
Reasoning: Gregory Nemitz appeals the dismissal of his complaint by the district court, which was based on his failure to state a claim regarding a declaratory judgment related to alleged private property on asteroid 433 EROS.
Denial of Procedural Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the plaintiff's procedural motions to convene a different type of court and to submit additional briefs.
Reasoning: Additionally, Nemitz's motions to convene an Article III court and to file an amicus brief are denied.
Publication and Citation of Unpublished Opinionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling in this case is not designated for publication and cannot be cited as precedent in this circuit, except under specific local rules.
Reasoning: The ruling is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in this circuit except under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.