Joel W. Ellington, Dr. v. Nancy Becker, Judge Bob Miller Frankie Sue Del Papa Public Defender Office

Ninth Circuit

Joel W. Ellington, Dr. v. Nancy Becker, Judge Bob Miller Frankie Sue Del Papa Public Defender Office

995 F.2d 231, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 22554, 1993 WL 191860

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 1993

Docket92-16964

StatusUnpublished

This text of 995 F.2d 231 (Joel W. Ellington, Dr. v. Nancy Becker, Judge Bob Miller Frankie Sue Del Papa Public Defender Office) 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

Joel W. Ellington, Dr. v. Nancy Becker, Judge Bob Miller Frankie Sue Del Papa Public Defender Office, 995 F.2d 231, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 22554, 1993 WL 191860 (9th Cir. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

995 F.2d 231

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Joel W. ELLINGTON, Dr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Nancy BECKER, Judge; Bob Miller; Frankie Sue Del Papa;
Public Defender Office, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-16964.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 1993.*
Decided June 4, 1993.

Before: HUG, WIGGINS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Dr. Joel Ellington, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal, with leave to amend, of his civil rights complaint. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

A district court order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend is not a final appealable order. Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi, 741 F.2d 1169, 1171 n. 1 (9th Cir.1984); Proud v. United States, 704 F.2d 1099, 1100 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam).

Here, Ellington filed a complaint against a Nevada state court judge, the governor of Nevada, the Nevada attorney general, and the Nevada public defender's office alleging they conspired to deprive Ellington of his constitutional rights in his state court criminal trial. The district court granted Ellington forma pauperis status but dismissed Ellington's complaint with leave to amend because it did not comply with the local rules. The district court granted Ellington 20 days leave to amend or to seek a waiver under the local rules. Ellington appealed the district court order.

The district court's order is not appealable. See Proud, 704 F.2d at 1100. Accordingly, we dismiss Ellington's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

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

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

995 F.2d 231

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Joel W. ELLINGTON, Dr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Nancy BECKER, Judge; Bob Miller; Frankie Sue Del Papa;
Public Defender Office, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-16964.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 25, 1993.*
Decided June 4, 1993.

Before: HUG, WIGGINS, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Dr. Joel Ellington, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal, with leave to amend, of his civil rights complaint. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

A district court order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend is not a final appealable order. Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi, 741 F.2d 1169, 1171 n. 1 (9th Cir.1984); Proud v. United States, 704 F.2d 1099, 1100 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam).

Here, Ellington filed a complaint against a Nevada state court judge, the governor of Nevada, the Nevada attorney general, and the Nevada public defender's office alleging they conspired to deprive Ellington of his constitutional rights in his state court criminal trial. The district court granted Ellington forma pauperis status but dismissed Ellington's complaint with leave to amend because it did not comply with the local rules. The district court granted Ellington 20 days leave to amend or to seek a waiver under the local rules. Ellington appealed the district court order.

The district court's order is not appealable. See Proud, 704 F.2d at 1100. Accordingly, we dismiss Ellington's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

995 F.2d 231, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 22554, 1993 WL 191860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joel-w-ellington-dr-v-nancy-becker-judge-bob-miller-frankie-sue-del-ca9-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack