Richard L. Locken v. Charles E. Robbins

Good Law
24 F.3d 247·1994 WL 196754·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 18808
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 18, 199493-35450California2,691 words

Opinion

Opinion

24 F.3d 247 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Richard L. LOCKEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles E. ROBBINS, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-35450. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 11, 1994. * Decided May 18, 1994. Before: HUG, D.W. NELSON, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Richard L. Locken, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. We affirm. Jurisdiction 3 Prior to reaching the merits of this appeal, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction. Defendants contend that we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal because Locken filed a notice of appeal before the district court resolved Locken's Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. This contention lacks merit. 4 A notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from. Fed.R.App.P.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.