Carl v. Dumler v. Oregon State Prison Manfred F. Maass

29 F.3d 631 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Carl V. DUMLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. OREGON STATE PRISON; Manfred F. Maass, Respondents-Appellees. No. 93-35844. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 6, 1994. * Decided June 16, 1994. Before: TANG, PREGERSON, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Carl Dumler, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's (1) denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction; 1 (2) denial of his motion to recuse the district court judge; and (3) denial of his motion for appointment of counsel in Dumler's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action alleging that he is receiving inadequate medical care. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, Dumler's challenge to the district court's denial of his motion to recuse the district court judge, see In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020, 1022-24 (9th Cir.1982) (motion to recuse is not a final appealable order). We also lack jurisdiction to…