In Re: James B. Jordan

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2025
• Docket: 23-3910
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: JAMES B. JORDAN, No. 23-3910 D.C. No. 2:23-mc-00154-PSG Appellant.

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 17, 2025**

Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Jordan’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 5) is

granted.

Jordan appeals pro se from an order of the chief judge of the Central District

of California (“OCJ 23-111”), restricting Jordan’s in-person access to the United

States Courthouses of the Central District of California. We dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We lack jurisdiction to review OCJ 23-111 because it is an administrative

action outside the scope of the litigative function. See In re Application for

Exemption from Elec. Pub. Access Fees by Jennifer Gollan & Shane Shifflett, 728

F.3d 1033, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing between judicial and

administrative decisions); see also Matter of Baker, 693 F.2d 925, 926-27 (9th Cir.

1982) (explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 1291 “necessarily refers to final decisions of a

judicial character, not to administrative actions of the district judge that are

essentially outside the scope of the litigative function”).

Jordan’s motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

2 23-3910