the defendants argue that because Harvey did not specifically list on his notice of appeal the July 8, 1997, order in which the district court dismissed Judge Hernandez, Harvey’s appeal of the dismissal of Judge Hernandez is barred by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) (requiring notice of appeal to “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed”). We disagree. “An appeal from a final judgment draws in question all earlier, non-final orders and rulings which produced the judgment.” United Ass’n of Journeymen & Apprentices v. Bechtel Constr. Co., 128 F.3d 1318, 1322 (9th Cir.1997). The July 8, 1997, order dismissing Judge Hernandez was clearly an “earlier, non-final order[ ].” Id.; see WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136-37 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Patchick v. Kensington Publ’g Corp., 743 F.2d
holding that dismissal with leave to amend is not a final order holding that when a district court expressly grants leave to amend it is plain that the order is not final holding that denial of a postconviction motion without prejudice and with leave to amend is not a final appealable order holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made holding that a district courts dismissal that expressly grants leave to amend is not final and that a final judgment must be obtained before such a case becomes appealable