Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01338/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01338-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MELVIN M. MARIN, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 91-1338 

-, 1 r 

~ .'.. L .u .U 

United StatP-s Court or Ap;~:-. Tent~ r:-... ,;• .

FEBO 5 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEP, 

Clerk 

) (D. Colo. No. 91-N-766) 

GALE A. NORTON, Attorney ) 

General of the State of ) 

Colorado; COLORADO BOARD OF ) 

LAW EXAMINERS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

The appellant, Melvin M. Marin, filed suit in the United 

States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging that 

the Colorado bar application process is unconstitutional because 

it requires applicants to waive their First Amendment rights 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-1338 Document: 010110221722 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 1 
before their applications will be considered. Appellant's Opening 

Brief at 1. Although the case is still pending and no final order 

has been entered, the appellant seeks to appeal a number of 

rulings that the district court has made in that case. We dismiss 

for lack of jurisdiction because the rulings appealed are 

nonappealable interlocutory decisions under 28 U.S.C. S§ 1291 and 

1292 and no exceptions apply. 1 

First, Marin appeals certain discovery orders. The district 

court granted the appellees' motion for protective orders, thereby 

staying discovery and prohibiting Marin from deposing certain 

Colorado Attorneys General, and denied Marin's motion to compel 

discovery. These orders are nonappealable. See Graham v . Gray, 

827 F.2d 679, 681 (10th Cir. 1987) ( "Pretrial discovery orders are 

ordinarily not appealable as final orders under 28 U.S.C. S 

1291. "); Appeal of Licht & Semonoff, 796 F. 2d 564, 568 ( 1st Cir. 

1986) ("The law is substantially settled that neither a party nor 

a nonparty to litigation may bring an immediate appeal of a 

discovery order."). 

Second, Marin appeals the district court ' s denial of his 

motions for Rule 11 sanctions. This denial is nonappealable . "We 

have held that generally parties and attorneys sanctioned during 

litigation 'must bear the burden of sanctions to the conclusion of 

the case and appeal on the merits of a fully adjudicated case. ' " 

Dodd Ins. Services .v . Royal Ins. Co . of America, 935 F . 2d 1152, 

1154 n.1 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing D&H Marke ters, Inc. v. Freedom 

1 Accordingly, we deny the appellant ' s motion to consolidate. 

However, we grant the appellant's motion for waiver of rules 

requiring multiple submissions of briefs. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 91-1338 Document: 010110221722 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 2 
Oil & Gas, Inc . , 744 F.2d 1443, 1446 (10th Cir. 1984)). 

Third, Marin appeals the district court's award of costs to 

the appellees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. In Ohio 

v . Arthur Andersen & Co., 570 F.2d 1370 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. 

denied, 439 U. S. 833 (1978), we held that an order imposing 

preclusionary and monetary sanctions for noncompliance with 

discovery orders under Rule 37 was final and appealable under 

Cohen. In D&H Marketers, Inc. , 744 F.2d at 1446, however, we 

limited Ohio to its facts: a sanction order that if complied with 

may put the sanctioned party in violation of foreign law and that 

may result in irreparable harm. See G.J.B. & Assocs . , Inc . v. 

Singleton, 913 F.2d 824, 828-29 n.5 (10th Cir. 1990). These 

circumstances do not exist in the case at bar. Accordingly, we 

follow the general rule that "orders imposing sanctions under Rule 

37 are interlocutory and may not be appealed until entry of final 

judgment. " United States v . Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 648 F.2d 

642, 651 (9th Cir. 1981). 

Finally, Mari n appeals the court's denial of his motion to 

recuse Judge Nottingham. A district court's denial of a motion to 

recuse is not appealable until final judgment is entered. City of 

Pittsburgh v. Simmons, 729 F.2d 953, 954 (3d Cir. 1984); In re 

Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 614 F.2d 958, 961 (5th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 888 (1980); United States v. State 

of Washington, 573 F.2d 1121, 1122 (9th Cir. 1978). 

For the reasons stated above, this appeal is DISMISSED for 

lack of jurisdiction. The mandate s ha ll i ssue for t hwi t h . 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 91-1338 Document: 010110221722 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 3 
Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 91-1338 Document: 010110221722 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 4