Ester Burnett v. Doctor Bruce Faecher

Ninth Circuit

Ester Burnett v. Doctor Bruce Faecher

361 F. App'x 900

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 11, 2010

Docket08-56887

StatusUnpublished

This text of 361 F. App'x 900 (Ester Burnett v. Doctor Bruce Faecher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ester Burnett v. Doctor Bruce Faecher, 361 F. App'x 900 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Ester Burnett, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing some but not all of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his medical care. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

We have an obligation to consider jurisdictional issues sua sponte. WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). We generally have jurisdiction over only final orders of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Without the district court’s certification pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, orders dismissing some but not all of the defendants are not appealable final orders. See Frank Briscoe Co. v. *901 Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir.1985); Maurer v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 691 F.2d 434, 436 n. 1 (9th Cir.1982) (“A dismissal as to some but not all defendants is not a final order as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and is not appealable absent a certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)”). Moreover, an order denying appointment of counsel is not an appealable final order. See Kuster v. Block, 773 F.2d 1048, 1049 (9th Cir.1985). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

Because we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, we do not consider Burnett’s outstanding motions.

DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Ester Burnett, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing some but not all of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his medical care. We dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

We have an obligation to consider jurisdictional issues sua sponte. WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). We generally have jurisdiction over only final orders of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Without the district court’s certification pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, orders dismissing some but not all of the defendants are not appealable final orders. See Frank Briscoe Co. v. *901 Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir.1985); Maurer v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 691 F.2d 434, 436 n. 1 (9th Cir.1982) (“A dismissal as to some but not all defendants is not a final order as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and is not appealable absent a certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)”). Moreover, an order denying appointment of counsel is not an appealable final order. See Kuster v. Block, 773 F.2d 1048, 1049 (9th Cir.1985). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

Because we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, we do not consider Burnett’s outstanding motions.

DISMISSED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 F. App'x 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ester-burnett-v-doctor-bruce-faecher-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack