Case Name: Donald C. ERICKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEWMAR CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-09
Citations: 53 F. App'x 418
Docket Number: No. 01-15353; D.C. No. CV-91-00968-DWH(RJJ)
Parties: Donald C. ERICKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEWMAR CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 53
Pages: 418–419

Head Matter:
Donald C. ERICKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEWMAR CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-15353.
D.C. No. CV-91-00968-DWH(RJJ).
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 2, 2002.
Decided Dec. 9, 2002.
Before GOODWIN, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Donald C. Erickson appeals pro se the district court's post-judgment order denying Erickson's motion to release the supersedeas bond posted by Newmar Corpora tion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). This court has an independent duty to determine its own jurisdiction. Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 F.2d 414, 417 (9th Cir.1992). The record indicates that the parties continue to litigate the issue of the supersedeas bond in district court. Because there is no final judgment and no applicable exception to the final judgment rule, we lack jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see also Andersen v. United States, 298 F.3d 804, 810 (9th Cir.2002) (appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where proceedings not final). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
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.