Unpublished Disposition, 885 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1986)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 885 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1986)

William Roger JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Dixy Lee RAY, Governor, Gerald Thompson, John Shaughnessey,Robert Tropp, W. Edward Naugler, M.D., JamesSpalding, et al., Defendants-Appellees

No. 86-4388.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 28, 1989.* Decided Sept. 11, 1989.

Before KILKENNY, ALARCON, RYMER, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

William Roger Jones appeals from the failure of the clerk of the district court to file a motion he submitted on November 2, 1986. On September 30, 1986, the district court issued an order in Hoptowit v. Spellman, D.C. No. C-79-359-RJM, directing the clerk to submit all pleadings submitted by individual class members to Tim Ford, the attorney for the members of the class. Jones is a member of the class. Jones did not file a timely notice of appeal from the district court's September 30, 1986 order requiring that all pleadings by class members be submitted to counsel.

On November 2, 1986, Jones mailed to the clerk a document styled as a "Motion to Intervene Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 24(a) (2), 24(b) (2) Or In The Alternative To Be Represented Individually In The Class Suit Pursuant To F.R.C.P. 23(c) (2) (c)." (emphasis in original). The document was stamped received by the clerk. It was not filed.

Jones purports to appeal from " [t]he decision of the District Court to apply Judge McNichols' 'Standing Order' to exclude my motion to intervene." Appellant's Opening Brief, page 5.

* We have reviewed the record. The district court has not entered an order denying Jones' motion for intervention or to be represented by separate counsel. Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to determine whether Jones' motion for intervention or to be represented by separate counsel comes within the September 30, 1986 order. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Jones has chosen the wrong remedy to obtain a hearing before the district court on these issues. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice.

DISMISSED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit 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.R. 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.