Case Name: Ewaar S. GAMBARA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FGA, aka Falkenberg Gilliam and Associates; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-19
Citations: 84 F. App'x 893
Docket Number: No. 03-55414
Parties: Ewaar S. GAMBARA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. FGA, aka Falkenberg Gilliam and Associates; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 893–894

Head Matter:
Ewaar S. GAMBARA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. FGA, aka Falkenberg Gilliam and Associates; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 03-55414.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
Decided Dec. 19, 2003.
Ewaar S. Gambara, pro se, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Robert H. Quayle, Scott E. Patterson, Esq., Daley & Heft, Solana Beach, CA, Christopher R. Allison, Esq., Farmer Weber and Case, John T. Farmer, Esq., Farmer & Case, David R. Sherman, Office of the City Attorney, Civil Division, US Attorney, Ernest Cordero, Jr., Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ewaar S. Gambara appeals pro se the district court's orders dismissing his claims and denying his request to file a second amended complaint in his action against several public and private defendants, alleging trespass, assault and battery, and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1988. We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal and therefore dismiss.
We have jurisdiction of appeals from final judgments of a district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court dismissed the claims against six defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); however, Gambara's claims against Defendants Cory Mapston, Frank Cali, San Diego Police Department, and City of San Diego remain pending. Therefore, the district court's orders are not appealable final judgments. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Indian Oasis-Baboquivari Sch. Dist. No. 40 v. Kirk, 109 F.3d 634, 636 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc) ("[An] order or decision must adjudicate the claims of all of the parties to an action in order to be an appealable final judgment.")
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.