Kahre v. Biggar

Ninth Circuit

Kahre v. Biggar

94 F. App'x 656

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 16, 2004

DocketNo. 03-15751

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 F. App'x 656 (Kahre v. Biggar) 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

Kahre v. Biggar, 94 F. App'x 656 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Robert Kahre appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action which arose from discovery orders issued in a Nevada state court action. We dismiss the appeal.

On February 27, 2003, the district court entered separate judgment dismissing Kahre’s action. Kahre filed his notice of appeal on April 23, 2003, 55 days after the entry of judgment, Kahre’s reliance on Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) is unavailing because appellee Mahan, at the time of the events giving rise to Kahre’s action, was not an officer of the United States, but rather the judge presiding over Kahre’s state court action.

Consequently, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal and grant appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Robert Kahre appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action which arose from discovery orders issued in a Nevada state court action. We dismiss the appeal.

On February 27, 2003, the district court entered separate judgment dismissing Kahre’s action. Kahre filed his notice of appeal on April 23, 2003, 55 days after the entry of judgment, Kahre’s reliance on Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) is unavailing because appellee Mahan, at the time of the events giving rise to Kahre’s action, was not an officer of the United States, but rather the judge presiding over Kahre’s state court action.

Consequently, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal and grant appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 F. App'x 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kahre-v-biggar-ca9-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack