Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court, for the District of Hawaii, D.C. No. CV-91-00122-ACK(F; Alan C. Kay, District Judge, Presiding.
D.Hawai'i
DISMISSED.
Before: ALARC§N, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Hawaii state prisoner Sabil M. Mujahid, a.k.a. Terry Smith, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment for defendant prison officials in Mujahid's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. Mujahid alleged that defendants violated Mujahid's First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by (1) denying him the ability to use his religious name, (2) denying him a vegetarian diet that is required by his religion, (3) denying him the opportunity to participate in group prayer, (4) denying him meaningful access to the courts, and (5) requiring him to sleep on a mattress on the floor. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the district court has not entered a final appealable order. See Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981).
"It is axiomatic that orders granting partial summary judgment, because they do not dispose of all claims, are not final appealable orders under section 1291." Cheng v. Commissioner, 878 F.2d 306, 309 (9th Cir. 1989). "Without a Rule 54(b) certification, orders granting partial summary judgment are non-final." Chacon, 640 F.2d at 222; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);
On September 18, 1992, the district court issued an order adopting in part and rejecting in part the magistrate judge's report recommending that summary judgment be granted for defendants. In that order, the district court found that because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the prison's policy allowed the use of "aka" names, summary judgment was inappropriate on Mujahid's first claim. The district court also found that a factual dispute existed as to whether prison officials denied Mujahid a vegetarian diet. The court concluded that injunctive relief, therefore, was inappropriate on Mujahid's second claim. Because the district court did not resolve these claims in a subsequent order, they remain outstanding.
A review of the record indicates that the district court did not certify this appeal under Rule 54(b). Because we do not have jurisdiction over orders granting partial summary judgment, absent certification or other circumstances not present here, we dismiss this appeal. Chacon, 640 F.2d at 222.
DISMISSED.
FN** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.