JAMES WILLIAM JONES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
PETER J. PITCHESS, SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, PAT SHIELDS, SERGEANT IN L. A. COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., REAL PARTY IN INTEREST, 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 a dismissal of a complaint without prejudice is not a final order and thus not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
An inmate appealed the dismissal of his civil rights complaint, which was dismissed for failing to state sufficient facts. The complaint contained onl…
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 Civil Rights Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Jones, an inmate at a California state prison, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint. The complaint was dismissed because Jones failed to state sufficient facts to entitle him to relief under the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1988.
A dismissal of a complaint without dismissing the action is not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the complaint is still open to amendment. The complaint was deficient because it contained only unsupported conclusionary allegations. No “special circumstances” here indicate that the complaint could not be cured by amendment. Hurst v. State of California, 451 F. 2d 350 (9th Cir. 1971). Therefore, the order appealed from is not an appealable order. Jackson v. Nelson, 405 F. 2d 872, 873 (9th Cir. 1968). Accordingly the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.1 Hemstreet v. Schade, 459 F. 2d 49 (9th Cir. 1972).
. In so far as this court might be said to have jurisdiction because part of the district court’s order denied injunctive relief from a “continuing false imprisonment,” it is clear that release from custody is not available in a civil rights action. Peinado v. Adult Authority, 405 F. 2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1969). The complaint alleges no exhaustion of state remedies and therefore the action could not be considered ns one brought for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ginter v. State BAR OF Nev., 625 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1980)
-
Stevens v. Sec. Pac. Nat'l Bank, 538 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1976)
Authorities Cited
- Jackson v. Nelson, 405 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1968)
- Peinado v. Adult Auth. OF the Dep't OF Corr., 405 F.2d 1185 (9th Cir. 1969)
- Hurst v. State OF Cal., 451 F.2d 350 (9th Cir. 1971)
- Hemstreet v. Schade, 459 F.2d 49 (9th Cir. 1972)