Ester Burnett v. Doctor Bruce Faecher;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
PDM/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESTER BURNETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DOCTOR BRUCE FAECHER; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 08-56887
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02745-PSG-
MLG
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Ester Burnett, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s order dismissing some but not all of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

PDM/Research 08-56887 2
action alleging constitutional violations in connection with his medical care. We
dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
We have an obligation to consider jurisdictional issues sua sponte. WMX
Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). We generally
have jurisdiction over only final orders of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Without the district court’s certification pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, orders dismissing some but not all of the defendants are
not appealable final orders. See Frank Briscoe Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776
F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir. 1985); Maurer v. L.A. County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 691 F.2d
434, 436 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1982) (“A dismissal as to some but not all defendants is not
a final order as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and is not appealable absent a
certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).”). Moreover, an order denying
appointment of counsel is not an appealable final order. See Kuster v. Block, 773
F.2d 1048, 1049 (9th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the
appeal.
Because we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, we do not consider Burnett’s
outstanding motions.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --