Roy Douglas Hurst v. State of California

Ninth Circuit

Roy Douglas Hurst v. State of California

451 F.2d 350

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 10, 1971

Docket71-1738

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 451 F.2d 350 (Roy Douglas Hurst v. State of California) 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

Roy Douglas Hurst v. State of California, 451 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs, inmates at California Men’s Colony, appeal from an “Order Dismissing Complaint” that was based upon their failure to allege the names of any defendants in the caption of the complaint other than the “State of California, Et Al.” The State of California was found to be an improper defendant under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A dismissal of a complaint without dismissal of the action is not a “final order” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the complaint is still open to amendment. Since we find no “special circumstances” here which indicate that the court below determined that the complaint could not be saved by amendment, the order is not appealable. Jackson v. Nelson (9 Cir. 1968), 405 F.2d 872, 873. See also Rule 21, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs, inmates at California Men’s Colony, appeal from an “Order Dismissing Complaint” that was based upon their failure to allege the names of any defendants in the caption of the complaint other than the “State of California, Et Al.” The State of California was found to be an improper defendant under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

A dismissal of a complaint without dismissal of the action is not a “final order” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the complaint is still open to amendment. Since we find no “special circumstances” here which indicate that the court below determined that the complaint could not be saved by amendment, the order is not appealable. Jackson v. Nelson (9 Cir. 1968), 405 F.2d 872, 873. See also Rule 21, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. Hunt Petroleum Corp. Kingfisher Resources, Inc. v. United States of America, United States of America, Petro-Hunt, L.L.C., Hunt Petroleum Corp. Kingfisher Resources, Inc. v. United States of America, Aspect Resources L.L.C. Bayou Petroleum Co. First Texas Hydrocarbons, Inc. Oscar C. Forland Gulf Coast Oil & Gas Co. Justiss Oil Company, Inc. M.B. Exploration, L.L.C. Northstar Energy L.L.C. Palmer Petroleum, Inc. Howell R. Spear John P. Strang Wheless T.D.L. Exploration Company, L.L.C. Ocean Energy Resources, Inc., Formerly Known as Umc Petroleum Corp. Devon S.F.S. Operating, Inc., Formerly Known as Santa Fe Snyder Corp. J. Bradley Jeffreys Energy Arrow Exploration L.L.C. Caruthers Producing Company, Inc.

365 F.3d 385 (First Circuit, 2004)

Dorothy Elfenbein v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc., and Stelux Manufacturing Co., and Bulova Watch Co., Inc.

590 F.2d 445 (Second Circuit, 1978)

Christine v. Howard T. Maker & Smith Transfer Co.

6 Pa. D. & C.3d 492 (Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, 1978)

Mrs. Carmella M. Borelli v. City of Reading

532 F.2d 950 (Third Circuit, 1976)

James William Jones v. Peter J. Pitchess, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Pat Shields, Sergeant in L. A. County Sheriff's Dept., Real Party in Interest

469 F.2d 678 (Ninth Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

451 F.2d 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-douglas-hurst-v-state-of-california-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack