139 F. 3d 908 - Siler v. Snodgrass
139 F3d 908 Siler v. Snodgrass
139 F.3d 908
Stanley R. SILER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Dillingham Ship Repair; Benefits Review Board; Dennis
Vavrosky; David Howorth; Bruce A. Bottini; R. Glenn
SNODGRASS; Robert A. Friel, U.S. Department of Labor;
Oregon Secretary of State; Candy Carstensen; Department of
Treasury, Internal Revenue Service; Paul Dumas; Keith S.
Hansen, Dr.; Carol A. Dedeo; John H. Seifert; Statesman
Journal; Office of the Counsel to the President; Supreme
Court of the United States; U.S. Court of Federal Claims;
Multnomah County Recorders Office; Solicitor Dole, U.S.
Department of Labor; Boilermaker-Blacksmith National
Pension Trust; Alexander Investors Services, Ltd.; Senator
Mark Hatfield; Oregon State Bar Association; Sherwood
Broome; Library of Congress, Copyright Office and
Department Mw; Andrea Bushnell; Virgin Records America,
Inc.; Light & Semonoff; U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit; Occupational Safety and Health
Administration; U.S. West Incorporated; Ron Wyden, 3rd
District; Francis & Freedman Property Management, Inc.;
Multnomah County Animal Control; D & T Properties;
Multnomah County Circuit Court; U.S. Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division; Cooney Moscato & Crew; Solicitor
General, U.S. Department of Justice; State Employees Credit
Union; Multnomah County Sheriff Department; National Pen
Corporation; Social Security Administration Disability &
Inter Operations; U.S. Marshall Service; Dorrance
Publishing, Inc.; Larry Weiss; Zygo Industries
Incorporated; City of Portland Bureau of Licenses; United
States Senate; Department of Revenue Oregon; Steven M.
Amundson, Vito J. Dipietro, Thomas J. Byrnes, Commercial
Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of
Justice; U.S. BANK; James L. Siler; Richard Siler;
Connie Bluhm; Patrick Doherty; Nahum Litt, Chief, Office
of Administrative Law Judges, U.S. Department of Labor;
U.S. District Court; International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers & Blacksmiths Local Lodge 72; Teleport, Inc.;
Barbara Roberts; Lane Powell Spears Lubersky; Del
Development; Boilermakers Local Lodge 72, Apprenticeship,
Training, Upgrading and Refresher Fund; Secretary of State,
Corporation Division, 158 12th Street Salem OR 97310-4116;
Congress of the United States of America; Foster Pepper &
Shefelman, Defendants,
v.
R. Glenn Snodgrass; Benefits Review Board; Robert A.
Friel, U.S. Doepartment of Labor; Department of Treasury,
Internal Revenue Service; Office of the Counsel to the
President; Supreme Court of the United States; U.S. Court
of Federal Claims; Solicitor Dole, U.S. Department of
Labor; Senator Mark Hatfield; Library of Congress,
Copyright Office and Department MW; U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit; Occupational Safety & Health
Administration; Ron Wyden, 3rd District; U.S. Department
of Justice, Antitrust Division; Solicitor General, U.S.
Department of Justice; Social Security Administration
Disability & Inter Operations; U.S. Marshall Service;
United States Senate; Steven M. Amundson, Vito J. DiPietro,
Thomas J. Byrnes, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, U.S. Department of Justice; Nahum Litt, Chief,
Office of Administrative Law Judges; U.S. Department of
Labor; U.S. District Court; Congress of the United States
of America, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 97-35347.
D.C. No. CV-96-01093-ALH.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 20, 1998.
Submitted February 9, 1998**.
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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding.
Before PREGERSON, CANBY, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
MEMORANDUM*
Stanley R. Siler appeals pro se the district court's January 6, 1997 post-judgment order denying the federal defendants' and defendant R. Glenn Snodgrass's ("defendants-appellees") motions to dismiss as moot. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review the district court's determination of mootness de novo. See Northwest Envtl. Defense Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.1988).
Because the district court had previously entered judgment dismissing Siler's action with prejudice as to all defendants on September 26, 1996, we conclude that the district court properly denied defendants-appellees' subsequent motions to dismiss as moot. See generally id. (stating that action is moot where the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome). Further, Siler's notice of appeal was filed too late to bring the original judgment for review.
AFFIRMED.1
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
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
Appellant's motion for correction or modification of the record pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 10(e) is denied