Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02135/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02135-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

CARLOS L. DIAZ, pro se, in his personal 

capacity and in and for the Estate of 

Edmundo B. Diaz as brother and personal 

representative of the Estate, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

HONORABLE JAMES LAWRENCE 

SANCHEZ; HONORABLE ALLEN 

SMITH; CHARLES SANCHEZ, Hearing 

Officer, 

 Defendants - Appellees, 

and 

LORETTA LYNCH, United States 

Attorney General; GARY KING, New 

Mexico Attorney General; VIOLET 

OTERO, former Honorable; JAMIE 

BACA, Probate Judge; ELIAS BARELA, 

Attorney; LAW OFFICE OF BARELA, all 

acting in a capacity as Officers of the Court 

in and for the Thirteenth Judicial District 

Court, Valencia County, all acting under 

Color of Law and performing duties as 

Officers of the Court, in their Judicial 

Capacity; Official Capacity, Personal; 

HONORABLE WILLIAM SANCHEZ, 

 Defendants. 

No. 15-2135 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-01086-KG-SCY) 

(D. N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 16, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-2135 Document: 01019570906 Date Filed: 02/16/2016 Page: 1 
2 

Before GORSUCH, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because all of the claims against all 

of the parties have not been finally adjudicated. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 

Pursuant to Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich, 850 F.2d 641, 645-46 (10th Cir. 1988) (10th 

Cir. 1988), this court gave the plaintiff an opportunity to obtain either a final judgment or 

a Rule 54(b) certification from the district court. The district court denied the plaintiff’s 

motion for certification. 

In response to this court’s order directing the plaintiff to show cause why the 

appeal should not be dismissed in light of the district court’s ruling, the plaintiff argues 

that final orders have been entered. This contention is without merit. A final decision is 

one that disposes of all issues on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but 

execute the judgment. Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 1915, 204 (1999) 

(citing to Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 521 (1988)); Mesa Oil Inc. v. 

United States, 467 F.3d 1252, 1254 (10th Cir. 2006). Here, there are claims pending 

against at least three defendants. 

Appellate Case: 15-2135 Document: 01019570906 Date Filed: 02/16/2016 Page: 2 
3 

Without a final judgment or a proper Rule 54(b) certification, this court lacks 

jurisdiction. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. Dismissal of this appeal does not 

preclude the plaintiff from filing a timely appeal after the entry of final judgment. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

by: Ellen Rich Reiter 

 Jurisdictional Attorney 

Appellate Case: 15-2135 Document: 01019570906 Date Filed: 02/16/2016 Page: 3