Arthur Solomon Gafford v. W. Duncan Attorney General of California James H. Gomez, Director

996 F.2d 1224 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Arthur Solomon GAFFORD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W. DUNCAN; Attorney General of California; James H. Gomez, Director, Respondents-Appellees. No. 92-55945. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 8, 1993. * Decided June 15, 1993. Before CANBY, FERNANDEZ and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 California state prisoner Arthur S. Gafford appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for habeas relief. Gafford contends that his right to due process was violated because he was not taken before a magistrate until five days and fourteen hours after his arrest. Because the district court order is not a final order, we dismiss the appeal. 3 We raise sua sponte the issue of our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. See Abernathy v. Southern California Edison, 885 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir.1989). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we have jurisdiction…