Case ID: f-appx_85/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lawrence REMSEN; et al., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. Carol A. DALY, Chairman, Board of Prison Terms; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 03-15871.
    D.C. No. CV-02-02587-FCD.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Jan. 8, 2004.
    Lawrence Remsen, pro se, Gregory Watson, pro se, Hafed Mohamed Thabet, pro se, Michael Stephen Matlock, pro se, Glenn Edward Hummel, pro se, Loreto Paradela, Jr., pro se, Gary J. Masse, pro se, Robert Chrisman, pro se, lone, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lawrence Remsen and seven other California state prisoners appeal pro se from the district court’s order denying reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s dismissal, with leave to amend, of their purported prisoner class action challenging the legality of various procedures used by the state of California in determining parole and good-time credits. We dismiss the appeal because a dismissal with leave to amend is not an appealable final decision. See WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc). In the absence of any evidence that the district court intended otherwise, its denial of reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order granting Appellants leave to amend does not constitute a final order dismissing their action.

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.