Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides That Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except when Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel, 127 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 1997)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 127 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 1997) Mark S. PRICE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Joseph M. ARPAIO, Sheriff, Frank R. Waelde, Commander,Madison Jail, Gundy, Sgt., Strable, Sgt., A 1402;Arellanes, Lt., Akins, Officer, A 4750, Officer Beesley, A4701, Donald W. Moose, Capt., Sgt. Ussher; Sgt. Wade, R.A.Delio, Cirillo, Officer a/k/a Officer A # 4683; OfficerGreer, Lt. Baize, Sgt. Nicholas, Officer Dietrich, Sgt. Law,Sgt. Morgan, Lt. Johnson, Officer Johnson, Shift Commander A# 994, Sgt. Dodson, Officer Roberts, Sgt. Leslie, Sgt.Swaney, Officer Massey, Defendants-Appellees

No. 96-16825.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 20, 1997.** Decided Oct. 24, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Barry Silverman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Before THOMPSON, T.G. NELSON, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM* 

Mark Steven Price, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Maricopa County Jail officials violated his constitutional rights when he was a pretrial detainee.

We lack jurisdiction because the district court's summary judgment order appealed from did not dispose of all of the claims in Price's amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(k); Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981).1  A review of the record shows that the order appealed from did not dispose of Price's claims that officials deprived him of equal protection, improperly took his property, and held him in unsanitary and unhealthy conditions.

DISMISSED.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 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. R. 36-3

 1

Although neither party challenged our jurisdiction, we raise the issue sua sponte. See WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 § F.3d 1233, 1135 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc)

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.