Unpublished Disposition, 925 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Alexander Damascus appeals pro se the district court's denial of his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider the court's denial of his motion to dismiss this action. The district court found Damascus was not entitled to relief for any of the grounds enumerated in Rule 60(b). We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Rule 60(b) allows a litigant to obtain relief from a final judgment under certain conditions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A district court's decision to deny such relief is reviewable only if the underlying judgment itself is reviewable as a final decision. See Branson v. City of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334, 336 (9th Cir. 1990) (court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review denial of Rule 59(e) motion to alter district court's dismissal of one defendant on ground of judicial immunity).

In this case, the district court's order denying Damascus's motion to dismiss is not a final judgment for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Roth v. Veteran's Admin., 856 F.2d 1401, 1403 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1988); Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. CHG Int'l, Inc., 811 F.2d 1209, 1214 (9th Cir. 1987) (" [a] refusal to dismiss is not a final order and hence is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291"). Moreover, the district court denied Damascus's petition to certify the decision as final pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of Damascus's motion for relief. See Branson, 912 F.2d at 336.

DISMISSED.