From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hurst v. State of California

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 10, 1971
451 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1971)

Opinion

No. 71-1738.

November 16, 1971. Rehearing Denied December 10, 1971.

Roy D. Hurst, Lloyd Daniels and Richard E. Deeth, in pro. per.

Evelle J. Younger, Cal. Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Russell Iungerich, Jack K. Weber, Deputy Attys. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before HAMLEY, BROWNING and CARTER, Circuit Judges.


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.


Summaries of

Hurst v. State of California

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 10, 1971
451 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1971)
Case details for

Hurst v. State of California

Case Details

Full title:ROY DOUGLAS HURST ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 10, 1971

Citations

451 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1971)

Citing Cases

Spraggins v. State

Plaintiff cannot pursue his claims against the State of Mississippi because it is not a proper defendant…

Synopsys, Inc. v. Matal

Airlines, Inc. v. Herman , 176 F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir. 1999).See alsoAzar v. Conley , 480 F.2d 220 (6th Cir.…