outside the scope of section 1291 review. In determining whether Judge White’s decision was administrative, we reject the grievants’ suggestion that we rely on Judge White’s characterization of his final order as administrative and nonappealable. Such an approach would be inconsistent with our duty to determine independently whether the district court exceeded its jurisdiction. United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 440, 56 S.Ct. 829, 831, 80 L.Ed. 1263, reh’g denied, 298 U.S. 692, 56 S.Ct. 951, 80 L.Ed. 1410 (1936). The approach that we adopt is to determine, based on the objective facts, whether Judge White was acting in an administrative capacity or whether he was acting in a judicial capacity. See Application of L.B. & W. 4217, 16 Alaska 277, 238 F.2d 163, 165, 166 (9th Cir.1956) (<HOLDING>). Judge White’s hearing was conducted pursuant
holding that its appellate jurisdiction does not extend to the adjudication of administrative or legislative issues or controversies but rather only to decisions of a judicial character holding that this court is not bound by decisions of the appellate division or the third circuit even where those decisions concern the same parties and legal issues holding that sources of public policy include legislation administrative rules regulations or decisions and judicial decisions and in certain instances a professional code of ethics holding that rookerfeldman does not apply to state administrative decisions holding that prison officials should not be made to paydamages for the consequences of legislative and judicial decisions