925 F.2d 1469
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Michael J. BERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Arthur LEE, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-15979.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 1991.*
Decided Feb. 22, 1991.
Before O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Michael J. Berry, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Wayne Hamblin, one of the defendants named in this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291, this court has jurisdiction over appeals from final orders of the district court. Absent certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), the disposition of a claim against one party where the action is not ended as to other parties does not constitute a final appealable order. Unioil, Inc. v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 809 F.2d 548, 554 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 822 (1987); Frank Briscoe Co. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir.1985). Here, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of one of the six defendants in this action. Certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) was neither sought by Berry nor granted by the district court. Therefore, because the action has not ended as to the other five defendants, the order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Hamblin is not a final appealable order.
DISMISSED.