John C. McGuckin v. Dr. Smith John C. Medlen, Dr.

John McGuckin, an Arizona state prisoner, brought a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against several prison medical authorities at the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) and Dr. John C. Medien, a private orthopedic specialist who does consulting work for the ADOC. McGuckin alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The district court dismissed without prejudice his claims against defendants Dr. Dimitri Catsaros and Ron Buttram, and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Dr. Theodore J. Smith and Dr. John G. Medien. McGuckin appeals.

Jurisdiction

Although neither party has addressed the question, we are required to raise issues concerning our jurisdiction sua sponte. See Abernathy v. Southern California Edison, 885 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir.1989). The dismissal of defendants Catsaros and Buttram was “without prejudice”: if the dismissal did not constitute a “final decision[ ]” of the district court, then we do *1053 not have jurisdiction over McGuckin’s appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

Final rulings generally “en[d] the litigation on the merits”. Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 , 65 S.Ct. 631, 633 , 89 L.Ed. 911…

concurring:

I agree with the result reached in the majority opinion. However, my agreement is only to the propositions specifically set forth in this concurrence, and not to the more expansive and additional propositions contained in that opinion.

First, I do agree that we have jurisdiction over this case because, as the majority points out, it is absolutely clear that the district court intended to and did dispose of the entire case when it entered its judgment of September 25, 1990. That is so, despite the fact that the judgment itself is ambiguous in form.

Second, as to Catsaros and Butlin, I agree that the district court should not have dismissed the action without first issuing an order explaining the problems in the complaint and giving McGuckin an opportunity to amend to correct those deficiencies. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir.1987). I am not, however, willing to declare that McGuckin will or will not be able to correct the deficiencies as to Catsaros. I would leave that to McGuckin and to the district court’s determination. I am also not willing to declare that amendments to name Butlin will be effective to make him a party to this action. I would leave…

974 F.2d 1050 23 Fed.R.Serv.3d 922 John C. McGUCKIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. SMITH, et al.; John C. Medlen, Dr., Defendants-Appellees. No. 90-16651. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 8, 1991 * . Decided Aug. 24, 1992. John C. McGuckin, pro se. Bruce L. Skolnik, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tucson, Ariz., for defendant-appellee. Tom Slutes, Slutes, Sakrison, Even, Grant & Pelander, Tucson, Ariz., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Before: POOLE, REINHARDT, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. REINHARDT, Circuit Judge: 1 John McGuckin, an Arizona state prisoner, brought a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against several prison medical authorities at the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) and Dr. John C. Medlen, a private orthopedic specialist who does consulting work for the ADOC. McGuckin alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The district court dismissed without prejudice his claims against defendants Dr. Dimitri Catsaros and Ron Buttram, and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Dr. Theodore J. Smith and Dr. John C. Medlen. McGuckin…