Legal Opinion
Roy Douglas Hurst v. State of California
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided December 10, 1971No. 71-1738PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Per curiam
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…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Calvin Winston Jackson v. Louis S. Nelson, Warden, Lieutenant Roger and Mr. Powell of San Quentin PrisonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1968
3Cited by7 opinions
- Mrs. Carmella M. Borelli v. City of ReadingCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Dorothy Elfenbein v. Gulf & Western Industries, Inc., and Stelux Manufacturing Co., and Bulova Watch Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1978
- Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2004
- 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 InterestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1972
- Synopsys, Inc. v. MatalDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2017
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.