Waldo E. Waldron-Ramsey v. Alameda County

967 F.2d 596 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Waldo E. WALDRON-RAMSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-15367. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 10, 1992. * Decided June 17, 1992. Before FLETCHER, LEAVY and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Waldo E. Waldron-Ramsey appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion to amend the judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We review for an abuse of discretion, Molloy v. Wilson, 878 F.2d 313, 315 (9th Cir.1989), and we affirm. 3 Waldron-Ramsey contends that the district court erred in dismissing with prejudice his claim for injunctive relief based on the ground that the claim was moot. This contention lacks merit. 4 "[A] case becomes moot when 'the issues presented are no longer "live" or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.' " Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (quotations omitted);…