Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01081/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01081-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

TERRANCE M. FARRELL, III, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, 

COLORADO; ANY INSURANCE 

CARRIER FOR GREG KELLERMEYER; 

MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR OF 

DOWNTOWN DENVER DETENTION 

CENTER; PATIENT ADVOCATE FOR 

DENVER HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER; 

DENVER HEALTH AND HOSPITAL 

AUTHORITY; DENVER COUNTY 

SHERIFF GARY WILSON; DENVER 

SHERIFF DEPUTY MICKELSON; 

DENVER SHERIFF DEPUTY 

SHERROD; DENVER SHERIFF 

DEPUTY TOMSICK; DENVER 

SHERIFF DEPUTY NORRGARD; 

DENVER SHERIFF DEPUTY 

SINGLETON; DENVER SHERIFF 

DEPUTY BLAINE; ANY INSURANCE 

CARRIER FOR CITY AND COUNTY OF 

DENVER, COLORADO, 

 Defendants - Appellees,

and

GREG KELLERMEYER, 

 Defendant.

No. 16-1081

(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-01605-MSK-CBS)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 20, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1081 Document: 01019624192 Date Filed: 05/20/2016 Page: 1 
2

Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter comes on for consideration of the plaintiff’s response to this court’s 

order of March 21, 2016. 

All of the claims against all of the parties have not been fully adjudicated by the 

district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The claims against Defendant Kellermeyer are 

still pending in the district court. 

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

this court gave the plaintiff an opportunity to obtain a Rule 54(b) certification in the 

district court. Rather than seeking such certification, the plaintiff responded by filing in 

this court a copy of the district court order entered on November 4, 2015, in which the 

court stated that it would not be issuing a Rule 54(b) certification.

Accordingly, because all of the claims against all of the parties have not been 

resolved in the district court, this court lacks jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The 

district court’s denial of certification is not appealable. See McCall v. Deeds, 849 F.2d 

1259 (9th Cir.1988); Makuc v. American Honda Motor Co., 692 F.2d 172, 173 (1st 

Cir.1982) (because only the granting of a Rule 54(b) motion interferes with the policy 

against piecemeal review, only the grant of the motion is reviewable under the abuse of 

discretion standard).

Appellate Case: 16-1081 Document: 01019624192 Date Filed: 05/20/2016 Page: 2 
3

APPEAL DISMISSED. This order does not preclude the plaintiff from filing a 

timely appeal after entry of final judgment. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Ellen Rich Reiter

 Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 16-1081 Document: 01019624192 Date Filed: 05/20/2016 Page: 3