Douglas Arthur Coupar v. Stephen Pontesso

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NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Douglas Arthur COUPAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen PONTESSO, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-15083. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 21, 1994. * Decided June 24, 1994. Before: TANG, PREGERSON, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Douglas Arthur Coupar, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action properly construed by the district court as one under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 3 A district court order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend is not a final and appealable decision. Proud v. United States, 704 F.2d 1099, 1100 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam). 4 Here, Coupar filed a complaint challenging an alleged surcharge on the cost of legal copies within the prison. The district court dismissed Coupar's complaint for failure to…