N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HOANG M INH TR

A N, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. W ILLIAM D. GOR

E; e t a l ., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-55993 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-02682-B TM B LM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia B arry T. M oskowitz , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . Form e r C a lifornia

sta te prisone r Hoa

ng M inh Tra

n a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing without pre judic e his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging va

rious c la im s a

rising from

his pre -tria l de te ntion. W e dism iss thea ppe a l for la c k of jurisdic tion. 

# FIL ED AUG 25 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Tran se e ks re vie wof the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting his motion For volunta ry dism issa l without pre

judic e . Howe ve r, unde r the fina l judgm e nt rule , a volunta ry dism issa l without pre

judic e unde r Fe d e ra l R

u le of C ivil Proc e dure 41 is not a fina l judgm e nt from

whic h Tra

n m ay a p pe a l be c a

use it is “n o t a dve rse ” to his inte re sts a

nd he “ is fre e to se e k

an a djudic ation of thesa

m e issue at a

nothe r tim e in the sa

m e or an othe r forum .” C onc ha v . London , 62 F.3d 1493, 1506-07 (9th C ir. 1995); se e also Romoland Sch. Dist. v . Inland Empire Ene rgy C tr. , 548 F.3d 738, 747, 750 (9th C ir. 2008) (disc u ssing whe n distric t c ourt’ s orde r is fina l and a ppe a la ble unde r the fina l judgm e nt rule e m bodie d in 28 U.S.C . § 1291). M ore ove r, Tran ’ s a

ppe a l doe s not fa ll within a ny re c ogniz e d e xc e ptions to the fina l judgm e nt rule . Se e , e .g., Romoland

, 548 F.3d a

t 750 (unde r lim i te d c irc um s ta nc e s , a ppe lla t e c ourt m ay

tre at a dism issa l without pre

judic e a s one with pre j udic e with thec l e ar, c onsiste nt inte nt of the c ourt a nd the pa rtie s); J ame s v . Pric e Ste r

n Sloan, Inc ., 283 F.3d 1064, 1066-70 (9th C ir. 2002) (unde r c e rta in lim ite d c irc um sta

nc e s, a ppe lla te c ourt m a

y re vie w a judgm e nt dismissing without pre j udic e c la im s re m a ining a fte r the distric t c ourt e nte rs a n a dve rse pa

rtia l judgm e nt a ga inst a

pa rty ). B e c a use we dism iss this a

ppe a l for la c k of jurisdic tion, we do not a ddre ss Tran’ s c onte ntions re g arding them e rits of his c la im s; inte rloc utory orde rs de ny ing

1 3 - 5 5 9 9 3 2his m otions for a ppointm e nt of c ounse l, for a c om pe te nc y he aring, a

nd for a ppointm e nt of a

nothe r inm ate a s “ ne xt frie nd” or gua rdia n a d lite m ; a

nd the distric t c o urt’ s a l le ge d fa ilure to re vie w a ll the e vide nc e and othe r struc tura l e rrors. Tran’ s m otions to subm

it supple m e nta l inform at ion a nd for judic i a l notic e , file d on Se p te m

b e r 30, Nove m

be r 15, a nd Nove m

be r 25, 2013, a

re grante d. DISM I SSE D.

1 3 - 5 5 9 9 3 3