Harold C. Banks, Plaintiff-appellant, v. City of Palo Alto, City of Palo Alto Police Department, Edaustin, Sgt., Pam Roskowski, Lt., Chris Durkin,assistant Chief, et al., Defendants-appellees, 943 F.2d 55 (9th Cir. 1991)
Annotate this CaseBefore CANBY and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and NIELSEN, District Judge.**
MEMORANDUM***
Under the standard articulated in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 US 242 (1986), and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 US 317 (1986), Judge Williams properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Judge Ingram's prior ruling was interlocutory and subject to reconsideration at any time. FRCP 54(b). After that ruling, the Supreme Court delivered the Anderson and Celotex decisions and the parties completed discovery. Judge Williams gave appellant adequate guidance as to how to oppose defendants' motions for summary judgment, but appellant was unable to do so. Appellant presented no genuine issues of material fact to the district court. See Stitt v. Williams, 919 F2d 516, 520 (9th Cir 1990). In addition, one of his claims was barred by the statute of limitations. Summary judgment on all claims was therefore proper.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
The Honorable William Fremming Nielsen, United States District Judge, Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
