Robert James Walton v. Janet Reno

Ninth Circuit

Robert James Walton v. Janet Reno

15 F.3d 1095, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 37635, 1993 WL 526361

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 1993

Docket93-16068

StatusPublished

This text of 15 F.3d 1095 (Robert James Walton v. Janet Reno) 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

Robert James Walton v. Janet Reno, 15 F.3d 1095, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 37635, 1993 WL 526361 (9th Cir. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

15 F.3d 1095
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Robert James WALTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Janet RENO, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-16068.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 1993.*
Decided Dec. 20, 1993.

Before: SNEED, NOONAN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Federal prisoner Robert James Walton appeals pro se the district court's dismissal with leave to amend of his complaint brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) alleging that prison officials improperly placed Walton in administrative segregation and confiscated certain religious materials. We dismiss the 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, the district court granted Walton in forma pauperis status but dismissed his complaint with leave to amend because the complaint did not comply with the court's local rules, and because Walton submitted a deficient declaration in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court granted Walton thirty days leave to amend and cure these deficiencies. Walton instead appealed the district court's order. This order, however, is not appealable. See Proud, 704 F.2d at 1100. Accordingly, we dismiss Walton'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

15 F.3d 1095
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.

Robert James WALTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Janet RENO, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 93-16068.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 1993.*
Decided Dec. 20, 1993.

Before: SNEED, NOONAN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Federal prisoner Robert James Walton appeals pro se the district court's dismissal with leave to amend of his complaint brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) alleging that prison officials improperly placed Walton in administrative segregation and confiscated certain religious materials. We dismiss the 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, the district court granted Walton in forma pauperis status but dismissed his complaint with leave to amend because the complaint did not comply with the court's local rules, and because Walton submitted a deficient declaration in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court granted Walton thirty days leave to amend and cure these deficiencies. Walton instead appealed the district court's order. This order, however, is not appealable. See Proud, 704 F.2d at 1100. Accordingly, we dismiss Walton'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)

15 F.3d 1095, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 37635, 1993 WL 526361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-james-walton-v-janet-reno-ca9-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack