Case Name: Thomas Ovia HAITHCOCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. M. VEAL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-23
Citations: 310 F. App'x 121
Docket Number: No. 07-55359
Parties: Thomas Ovia HAITHCOCK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. M. VEAL, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before: TROTT, KLEINFELD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 310
Pages: 121–122

Head Matter:
Thomas Ovia HAITHCOCK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. M. VEAL, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-55359.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 23, 2009.
Vivian Fu, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Thomas Ovia Haithcock, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Office of the Attorney General Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney Cas., Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Respon-den1>-Appellee.
Before: TROTT, KLEINFELD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
The district court's order denying stay and abeyance of Thomas Ovia Haithcock's federal habeas corpus action is not a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The collateral order doctrine does not apply in this case because Haithcock will be able to appeal the denial of the motion for stay and abeyance after the district court disposes of Haithcock's petition. See Olvera v. Giurbino, 371 F.3d 569, 574 (9th Cir.2004) (reviewing a denial of a motion for a stay and abeyance on appeal after the underlying petition was dismissed). Because Haithcock only appeals the order denying stay and abeyance, we dismiss Haithcock's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.