Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Brent L. Sellick v. Frank A. Helson, Also Known as Frank Addison Helton, 25602 (1972)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 25602 Visitors: 4
Filed: Apr. 10, 1972
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 459 F.2d 670 Brent L. SELLICK, Appellant, v. Frank A. HELSON, also known as Frank Addison Helton, et al., Appellees. No. 25602. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 10, 1972. Brent L. Sellick, in pro. per. Carrow & Jones, Novato, Cal., Hamilton & King, San Fancisco, Cal., Virginia L. Helton, Novato, Cal., for appellees. Before HAMLEY, MERRILL and TRASK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: 1 Plaintiff Brent L. Sellick appeals from orders of the District Court, first dismissing the action
More

459 F.2d 670

Brent L. SELLICK, Appellant,
v.
Frank A. HELSON, also known as Frank Addison Helton, et al.,
Appellees.

No. 25602.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

April 10, 1972.

Brent L. Sellick, in pro. per.

Carrow & Jones, Novato, Cal., Hamilton & King, San Fancisco, Cal., Virginia L. Helton, Novato, Cal., for appellees.

Before HAMLEY, MERRILL and TRASK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Plaintiff Brent L. Sellick appeals from orders of the District Court, first dismissing the action without prejudice and with leave for Sellick to amend his complaint, and later dismissing the action with prejudice and refusing to consider a motion made by Sellick.

2

The first dismissal was premised upon the ground of laches. Thereafter, Sellick took no action in the case for more than twenty months before attempting to file his amended complaint. In such circumstances a court has discretionary power to dismiss an action with prejudice. See Link v. Wabash Railway Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1962); Alexander v. Pacific Maritime Assoc., 434 F.2d 281, 283 (9th Cir. 1970). See also Freeman v. Continental Gin Company, 381 F.2d 459, 469 (5th Cir. 1967); Leighton v. One William Street Fund, 12 F.R.Serv.2d 15a.3, case 1, 192-193 (S.D.N.Y.1968). We find no abuse of discretion in the context of this case.

3

Sellick's other arguments for reversal are similarly without merit, and we do not think they warrant discussion.

4

Affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer