GUS FEIST, JR., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD A. MCGEE AND WALTER DUNBAR, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the district court's orders were not final.
A state prisoner filed a civil rights action against prison officials. The district court dismissed the action against two defendants for failure to s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 54(B) Certification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff, a California state prisoner at Folsom Prison, filed this civil rights action against Richard A. McGee, Walter Dunbar, and Walter E. Craven. McGee is apparently a member of the California Adult Authority, Dunbar is a member of the California Department of Corrections, and Craven is the warden of Folsom Prison.
In his complaint plaintiff presented a chronology of alleged wrongs inflicted by guards and prison officials including in at least one instance, defendant Craven. Defendants McGee and Dunbar were not mentioned in the body of the complaint.
The district court granted a motion to dismiss the action against McGee and Dunbar for failure to state a cause of action, and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend against the defendant Craven for failure to comply with Rules 8(a) and 10(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff appeals from these orders.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The order dismissing the action as against McGee and Dunbar is not subject to review at this time because the procedure for dismissals of less than all parties to an action has not been followed. See Rule 54(b), F.R.Civ.P. We decline to consider the district court’s order allowing in forma pauperis review as a Rule 54(b) determination. The dismissal of the complaint, which specifically provided for leave to amend, is not a final order subject to review. Jackson v. Nelson, 405 F. 2d 872 (9th Cir. 1968).
The appeal is dismissed.
Plaintiff may have sixty days from the date the mandate issues to file an amended complaint in compliance with the district court’s order of April 16, 1969.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Build OF Buffalo, Inc. v. Sedita, 441 F.2d 284 (2d Cir. 1971)
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. Nelson, 405 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1968)