Opinion

Hernan Orozco v. Edmund Brown, Jr.

  • 624 F. App'x 508
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Dec 2, 2015
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
Tashima, Owens, Friedland
Nature of suit
Prisoner
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 42.7%

The opinion

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 02 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HERNAN OROZCO, No. 15-16047

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01404-MCE-

CKD

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr., MEMORANDUM*

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 18, 2015**

Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Hernan Orozco, a civil detainee at Coalinga State Hospital, appeals pro se

from the district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus

seeking transfer to a different prison hospital. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

The district court converted Orozco’s mandamus petition to a 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action, found it deficient, and granted leave to amend. Orozco instead filed

another petition for writ of mandamus. We vacate the dismissal order and remand

for the district court to provide Orozco with notice of the deficiencies in his § 1983

complaint and an opportunity to file a new § 1983 complaint with the benefit of

that notice. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[B]efore

dismissing a pro se complaint the district court must provide the litigant with

notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the litigant uses

the opportunity to amend effectively.” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

To the extent Orozco contends the district court failed to comply with this

court’s writ of mandamus, we disagree.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 15-16047

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.