Court Opinion

ID: 9945895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 19:01:30.443553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:23:18.710761
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 28 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LA SHAUNA M. GRIFFIN,                           No. 23-55512

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 8:21-cv-00981-DOC-JDE

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
LOS ANGELES COUNTY; FRANCISCA
CAMPBELL, Administrative Services
Manager III; AMERICA RODRIGUEZ,
Administrative Services Manager II; ALEX
MEDINA, Administrative Services Manager
I; ALMA YOUNG, Administrative Services
Manager I; LUISA BARRETO, Management
Analyst; CRISTINA ROSALES,
Administrative Services Manager I;
KIMBERLY GREEN, Administrative
Services Manager I; PAMELA FONTENOT,
Administrative Services Manager II;
YVETTE MENDOZA, Intermediate Clerk;
ROSA MURO, Administrative Services
Manager I,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
                          Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      La Shauna M. Griffin appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting

leave to amend her second amended complaint in her federal employment law

action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

      We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order granting Griffin

leave to amend her second amended complaint because the order is not final or

appealable. See WMX Tech., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1135-37 (9th Cir.

1997) (en banc) (dismissal of complaint with leave to amend is not appealable); cf.

Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1993) (order) (“Rule 4(a)(2)

permits a notice of appeal from a nonfinal decision to operate as a notice of appeal

from the final judgment only when a district court announces a decision that would

be appealable if immediately followed by the entry of judgment.” (citation

omitted)).

      All pending motions are denied as moot.

      DISMISSED.

      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

                                         2                                     23-55512