Case Name: James Vernon TIEUEL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; Jerry Keller, Sheriff; Officer John Doe # 1; Officer John Doe # 2; Officer John Doe # 3; Does 1-10, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-28
Citations: 13 F. App'x 586
Docket Number: No. 00-15488; D.C. No. CR-97-00423-JBR/RJJ
Parties: James Vernon TIEUEL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; Jerry Keller, Sheriff; Officer John Doe # 1; Officer John Doe # 2; Officer John Doe # 3; Does 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before HILL, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 13
Pages: 586–587

Head Matter:
James Vernon TIEUEL, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARK COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; Jerry Keller, Sheriff; Officer John Doe # 1; Officer John Doe # 2; Officer John Doe # 3; Does 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-15488.
D.C. No. CR-97-00423-JBR/RJJ.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 11, 2001.
Decided June 28, 2001.
Before HILL, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable James C. Hill, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff James Tieuel appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment. Because the district court did not grant summary judgment on all claims, its order is not final and appealable. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
"Tt is axiomatic that orders granting partial summary judgment, because they do not dispose of all claims, are not final appealable orders under section 1291.' " Dannenberg v. Software Toolworks Inc. ., 16 F.3d 1073, 1074 (9th Cir.1994) (quoting Cheng v. Comm'r, 878 F.2d 306, 309 (9th Cir.1989)). Here, the district court granted only partial summary judgment. Defendants did not seek summary judgment on, and the district court did not reference, Tieuel's claims under the First Amendment or his claims under Nevada state law. In addition, it is unclear whether the district court intended to dismiss Tieuel's claims against the John Doe officers in their individual capacities; those parties are barely mentioned in Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and are not addressed in their individual capacities in the district court's order. Therefore, because not all of Tieuel's claims were the subject of final adjudication, we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.