In Re: James B. Jordan

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: JAMES B. JORDAN, No. 23-3910 D.C. No. 2:23-mc-00154-PSG Appellant. MEMORANDUM* Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 17, 2025** Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Jordan’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 5) is granted. Jordan appeals pro se from an order of the chief judge of the Central District of California (“OCJ 23-111”), restricting Jordan’s in-person access to the United States Courthouses of the Central District of California. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).  We lack jurisdiction to review OCJ 23-111 because it is an administrative action outside the scope of the litigative function. See In re Application for Exemption from Elec. Pub. Access Fees by Jennifer Gollan & Shane Shifflett, 728 F.3d 1033, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing between judicial and administrative decisions); see also Matter of Baker, 693 F.2d 925, 926-27 (9th Cir. 1982) (explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 1291 “necessarily refers to final decisions of a judicial character, not to administrative actions of the district judge that are essentially outside the scope of the litigative function”). Jordan’s motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied as moot. DISMISSED. 2 23-3910