United States v. Home Electronics Entertainment, and Peter C. MacFarlane A/K/A Richard W. Parker, Claimant-Appellant

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Home Electronics Entertainment, and Peter C. MacFarlane A/K/A Richard W. Parker, Claimant-Appellant

97 F.3d 1462, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 40361, 1996 WL 547936

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 25, 1996

Docket95-35305

StatusUnpublished

This text of 97 F.3d 1462 (United States v. Home Electronics Entertainment, and Peter C. MacFarlane A/K/A Richard W. Parker, Claimant-Appellant) 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

United States v. Home Electronics Entertainment, and Peter C. MacFarlane A/K/A Richard W. Parker, Claimant-Appellant, 97 F.3d 1462, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 40361, 1996 WL 547936 (9th Cir. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

97 F.3d 1462

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HOME ELECTRONICS ENTERTAINMENT, Defendant,
and
Peter C. Macfarlane, a/k/a Richard w. Parker, Claimant-Appellant.

No. 95-35305.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 23, 1996.*
Decided Sept. 25, 1996.

Before: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Peter C. Macfarlane, a federal prisoner in New York, appeals pro se the district court's order granting plaintiff's motion to transport Macfarlane to Oregon for an oral deposition. The district court's order is not a final, appealable order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see Bank of America v. Feldman (In re National Mortgage Equity Corp. Mortgage Pool Certificates Litig.), 821 F.2d 1422, 1423 (9th Cir.1987), nor is it appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), see City of Las Vegas v. Foley, 747 F.2d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.1984). Macfarlane has also failed to establish that this court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, which is generally not applied to pretrial discovery orders. See Bank of America, 821 F.2d at 1424-25. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id. at 1423-25; City of Las Vegas, 747 F.2d at 1297.

DISMISSED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See 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

97 F.3d 1462

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.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
HOME ELECTRONICS ENTERTAINMENT, Defendant,
and
Peter C. Macfarlane, a/k/a Richard w. Parker, Claimant-Appellant.

No. 95-35305.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 23, 1996.*
Decided Sept. 25, 1996.

Before: FLETCHER, BRUNETTI, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Peter C. Macfarlane, a federal prisoner in New York, appeals pro se the district court's order granting plaintiff's motion to transport Macfarlane to Oregon for an oral deposition. The district court's order is not a final, appealable order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see Bank of America v. Feldman (In re National Mortgage Equity Corp. Mortgage Pool Certificates Litig.), 821 F.2d 1422, 1423 (9th Cir.1987), nor is it appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), see City of Las Vegas v. Foley, 747 F.2d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir.1984). Macfarlane has also failed to establish that this court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, which is generally not applied to pretrial discovery orders. See Bank of America, 821 F.2d at 1424-25. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id. at 1423-25; City of Las Vegas, 747 F.2d at 1297.

DISMISSED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See 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)

97 F.3d 1462, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 40361, 1996 WL 547936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-home-electronics-entertainment-and-ca9-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack