Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

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

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-11-15
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • dismissal of complaint not a final order

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed 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. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
JONES v. PITCHESS,469 F.2d 678(9th Cir. 1972)
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.
No. 72-1672.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
November 15, 1972.
James William Jones, in pro. per.

John D. Maharg, County Counsel, Michael H. Dougherty, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before MERRILL, CHOY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Jones, an inmate at a California state prison, appeals the dismissal of his civilPage 679rights complaint. The complaint was dismissed because Jones failed to state sufficient facts to entitle him to relief under the Civil Rights Act42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1988.

[2] A dismissal of a complaint without dismissing the action is not a final order under28 U.S.C. § 1291because 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.1Hemstreet v. Schade,459 F.2d 49(9th Cir. 1972).Page 680
  1. 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 as one brought for a writ of habeas corpus.28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). ↩