matters that may come before him, falls within the statute’s prohibitions. As the California Supreme Court observed in connection with another section of the Penal Code, which similarly makes unlawful the receipt of a bribe intended to affect consideration “of any question or matter, upon which [the official] may be required to act in his official capacity”: The law does not require any specific action to be pending on the date the bribe is received.... The use of the word “may” suggests that payments designed to alter the outcome of any matter that could conceivably come before the official are within the prohibition of the statute. People v. Diedrich, 31 Cal.3d 263, 182 Cal.Rptr. 354, 360, 643 P.2d 971 (1982) (en banc). See also People v. Markham, 64 Cal. 157, 159, 30 P. 620 (1883) (<HOLDING>). Because no linkage of payment and specific
holding that  201b makes attempted bribery a crime and so long as a bribe is offered or promised with the requisite intent to influence any official act the crime is committed holding that in a bivens action service upon employee in his official capacity does not amount to service in his individual capacity holding that the crime is complete when the payment is corruptly given with intent to influence the judicial officer on any matter that may by law come before him in his official capacity whether or not it ever does holding that the question of whether a municipal official is a policymaking official is a matter of state law to be decided by the court holding that a party can sue a state officer in his or her official capacity to enjoin prospective action that would violate federal law