Unpublished Disposition, 884 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1988)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 884 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1988)

Donald F. STUMPF, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Roger V. ENDELL; Kevin Bruce; Ted Cory; Mike Starks;Phillip Briggs, Asst. Superintendent; ArthurSchmidt; Chester Chiarra, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-3849.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 11, 1989.* Decided Aug. 30, 1989.

Before O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY and TROTT, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Donald Stumpf appeals, pro se, the district court's dismissal of his section 1983 action "without prejudice." We reverse and remand to the district court to reconsider the reasons for dismissal.

FACTS

On January 13, 1984, while incarcerated at the Third Avenue Jail in Anchorage, Alaska, Donald Stumpf filed a complaint in federal district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint sought injunctive relief for loss of telephone privileges, loss of visitation rights, and placement in administrative segregation without due process of law. Stumpf was later moved to the Cook Inlet Pretrial Facility (CIPT) in Anchorage.

On September 14, 1984, Stumpf amended this complaint to allege, inter alia, violations of his rights to freedom of speech, association, religion, and other provisions of the United States and Alaskan Constitutions.

On January 14, 1988, the magistrate recommended dismissal of Stumpf's existing claims, and Stumpf objected. The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and dismissed Stumpf's claims "without prejudice." References to mootness, res judicata and collateral estoppel were mentioned in the record as bases for the dismissal. Any one of these bases should have meant a permanent end to this case. Thus we find a dismissal based upon these grounds inconsistent and irreconcilable with a dismissal "without prejudice." We therefore remand the case to the district court to reconsider its reasons for such a dismissal.

Accordingly, this matter is

REVERSED and REMANDED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 9th Cir. Rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. Rule 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.