HERNAN OROZCO V. EDMUND BROWN, JR., No. 15-16047 (9th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 02 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HERNAN OROZCO, No. 15-16047 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01404-MCECKD 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.