Olivier v. County of Los Angeles , 426 F. App'x 578 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 12 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAURICE P. OLIVIER, No. 07-56106
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-07-02961-JFW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2011 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Maurice P. Olivier, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his felony
prosecution by information, rather than by grand jury indictment. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Olivier’s action because there is no
constitutional right to be charged by way of a grand jury indictment rather than by
information. See Morford v. Hocker, 394 F.2d 169, 170 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
392 U.S. 944 (1968) (holding that the grand jury requirement of the Fifth
Amendment is not applicable to the states, and prosecution via an information is
not unconstitutional).
We do not consider Olivier’s arguments made for the first time on appeal.
See United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990).
Olivier’s motions regarding Fed. R. App. P. 44(b) and requesting entry of
judgment are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 07-56106