Stephen R. Townzen v. State of California County of El Dorado City of Placerville Police Department of Placerville

990 F.2d 1260 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Stephen R. TOWNZEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA; County of El Dorado; City of Placerville; Police Department of Placerville; et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-15844. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted March 10, 1993. * Decided March 15, 1993. Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and FARRIS and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Stephen R. Townzen appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing with prejudice his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 civil rights claims. We note lack of jurisdiction for want of a final appealable order, and dismiss this appeal. 3 While neither party has raised the issue of jurisdiction, we consider our jurisdiction sua sponte. Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi, 741 F.2d 1169 , 1171 n. 1 (9th Cir.1985). A district court order dismissing some but not all of the defendants is not a "final decision" appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . McGuckin v.…