La Shauna M. Griffin v. Los Angeles County

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LA SHAUNA M. GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
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.
No. 23-55512
D.C. No. 8:21-cv-00981-DOC-JDE
MEMORANDUM*
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.
FILED
FEB 28 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-55512
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 of 2 --