Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06178/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06178-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

F l L ~RpplllP 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSUnited sr~n~frcuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APR 2 8 1993 

CHARLES MICHAEL HINKLE, D.D.S., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF OKLAHOMA, 

a corporation; LINDA C. CAMPBELL; 

JOE MASSAD; DAVID MURDOCK; WILLIAM E . GOODMAN, D.D.S.; JACKSON D. HARAWAY, 

D.D.S.; JAMES R. DOUGHERTY, D.D.S.; 

LINDY H. COMBRINK; TERRY D. GRUBBS, 

D.D.S.; JAY L. KRUSKA, D.D.S.; JAMES 

LIMESTALL, D.D.S.; FRED R. LUCAS, 

D.D.S.; PHYLLIS TURLINGTON; CYNTHIA 

VOGLER HENRY, R.D.H., in their 

individual capacities; THE BOARD OF 

GOVERNORS OF REGISTERED DENTISTS OF 

OKLAHOMA, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

D. ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-6178 

(D.C. No. CIV-91-636-C) 

(W. D. Okla. ) 

Before MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and VAN BEBBER,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable G. Thomas Van Bebber, District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation . 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except f or purpose s o f establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10t h Cir. R. 36 . 3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-6178 Document: 010110220201 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 1 
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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Charles Michael Hinkle seeks review of 

the district court's decision to abstain from hearing his claims 

for injunctive and d eclaratory relief and to stay his claims for 

monetary relief. Because the order of the district court is not 

final under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and because no exception to the 

requirement of finality applies, this appeal is dismissed for want 

of jurisdiction, and we do not reach the other issues raised. 

After receiving unsolicited complaints about Dr. Hinkle, an 

Oklahoma dentist, defendant Board of Governors of Registered 

Dentists of Oklahoma (Board) initiated an investigation into 

Dr. Hinkle's dental practice . Before that investigation could be 

completed, Dr. Hinkle filed suit in the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Board and 

Delta Dental Plan (Delta) alleging state and federal antitrust 

violations, abridgement of various constitutional rights, and 

assorted state law tort claims. 

Citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the district 

court determined that abstention was appropriate with respect to 

Dr. Hinkle's request for declaratory and injunctive relief. Order 

on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, Appellant's App. tab 1 0 at 11 

(Order). The court reserved the monetary claims, however, staying 

those claims to "preserve plaintiff's ability to later pursue 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-6178 Document: 010110220201 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 2 
those issues after completion and review of the Board's 

proceedings." Order at 14. This appeal followed. 

Our first obligation is to inquire into the basis for our own 

jurisdiction. McGeorge v. Continental Airlines. Inc . , 871 F.2d 

952, 953 (10th Cir. 1989). To that end, we ordered additional 

briefing on the jurisdictional issue and now agree with defendants 

that the district court order is not final for purposes of appeal. 

As a general rule, only final orders of the federal district 

courts are within the appellate jurisdiction of this court. 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. "An order is final and appealable when the 

district court enters a decision which ends the litigation leaving 

nothing to be done except execution of the judgment." Primas v. 

City of Oklahoma City, 958 F.2d 1506, 1513 (10th Cir. 1992 ) (citing 

Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945) ). Under that 

standard, the order here is not final because the court stayed the 

monetary claims pending resolution of the state proceedings. An 

order in which "assessment of damages or awarding of other relief 

remains to be resolved [has] never been considered to be 'final' 

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291." Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. 

Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 744 (1976). 

The other possible basis for our jurisdiction in this case is 

28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1) which grants jurisdiction to this court 

over interlocutory orders of the district courts "granting, 

continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions." By 

abstaining from that portion of the case requesting injunctive 

relief, the court effectively refused to grant an injunction. See 

Carson v . American Brands. Inc., 450 U.S . 79, 83 (1981) (refusing 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-6178 Document: 010110220201 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 3 
to enter a consent decree had same practical effect as refusing to 

issue an injunction) . Showing that the district court's order had 

the same practical effect as the denial of an injunction, however, 

is only the first step in establishing this court's jurisdiction 

under § 1292 (a ) (1 ). Dr. Hinkle must also show that the 

interlocutory order "might have a 'serious, perhaps irreparable, 

consequence,' and that the order can be 'effectually challenged' 

only by immediate appeal." Id. at 84 (emphasis added) ; see also 

United States v. Colorado, 937 F.2d 505, 507-08 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Based on these standards, Dr. Hinkle has made no 

sufficient to override the general congressional policy 

piecemeal appeals. See Carson, 450 U.S. at 84. 

showing 

against 

Dr. Hinkle has failed to demonstrate that the interlocutory 

order, if left unreviewed at this time, will have a "serious, 

perhaps irreparable, consequence." The fact that Dr. Hinkle will 

have to withstand investigation by the Board is not the type of 

serious consequence contemplated here. "Certain types of injury, 

in particular, the cost, anxiety, and inconvenience of having t o 

defend against a single criminal prosecution, could not by 

themselves be considered 'irreparable' in the special legal sense 

of that tern." Younger, 401 U.S. at 46. Because defending 

against a criminal prosecution is not enough to constitute an 

irreparable consequence, neither is Dr. Hinkle's participation in 

the Board's administrative procedure . Because the Carson test is 

phrased in the conjunctive, Dr. Hinkle's inability to meet the 

"irreparable consequence" prong obviates the need for further 

analysis. 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-6178 Document: 010110220201 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 4 
As mentioned above, in addition to abstaining on the requests 

for injunctive and declaratory relief, the district court stayed 

Dr. Hinkle's monetary claims under the authority of Colorado River 

Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 

(1976). Order at 14. Dr. Hinkle argues that under Moses H. Cone 

Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1 

(1983), the stay order is appealable. We disagree. 

A stay order is ordinarily not immediately appealable. 

Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 10 n.11; Pioneer Properties, Inc. v. 

Martin, 776 F.2d 888, 890 (10th Cir. 1985). In Moses H. Cone, 

however, the Supreme Court did find that an order staying 

litigation in the federal court in favor of parallel litigation in 

a state court over a question of mandatory arbitration was 

immediately appealable. Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 8-10 . Moses 

H. Cone, however, is distinguishable. 

the claims between the parties 

There, the issue of whether 

were subject to mandatory 

arbitration was identical in both courts. This identity of issues 

posed the real danger that a decision in the state court would be 

res judicata in any later federal action. Thus , after the federal 

court's decision to stay the matter pending the outcome of the 

state action, the complaining litigant was '"effectively out of 

[federal] court.'" Id. at 10 (quoting Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor 

Cor:p. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 715 n.2 (1962)). That is not the 

situation here. 

The issues before the defendant Board involve whether Dr. 

Hinkle has complied with the Oklahoma Dental Act. The monetary 

claims stayed by the district court involve claims for damages for 

5 

Appellate Case: 92-6178 Document: 010110220201 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 5 
antitrust and constitutional violations and various state torts. 

We fail to see how any determination regarding Dr. Hinkle's 

compliance with the Dental Act would bar later consideration by 

the federal court of his antitrust claims against Delta or his 

claims of constitutional infringement with regard to the Board's 

handling of his case. It is theoretically possible for the Board 

and the courts of Oklahoma to find that Dr. Hinkle was not in 

compliance with the Dental Act, but for him still to be able to 

argue in a federal forum that the Dental Act itself, or the Act as 

applied to him by the Board, infringes upon his constitutional 

rights. 

Dr. Hinkle is not effectively out of federal court in this 

case. He retains the right to return to that forum after the 

state proceedings are completed to litigate his monetary claims. 

The stay order, therefore, is not a final order under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. See Pioneer Properties, 776 F.2d at 891 (similarly 

distinguishing Moses H. Cone ) ; Crotty v. City of Chicago Heights, 

857 F.2d 1170, 1174 (7th Cir. 1988 ) (holding stay order not a final 

appealable order where court retained jurisdiction over RICO claim 

and allowed discovery to proceed on that issue) .

1 

1 Dr. Hinkle cites Travelers Indemnity Co . v. Madonna, 914 F . 2d 

1364 (9t h Cir. 1990 ) , wherein the court states, "A Colorado River 

stay order is appealable as a final order." Id. at 1367 (citing 

Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S . at 13 ) . That is generally true because an 

order pursuant to Co lorado River usually "contemplates that the 

federal court will have nothing further to do in resolving any 

substantive part of the case." Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S . at 28. 

Here, however, it is clear that the district court contemplated 

further proceedings after resolution of the state matters. In 

addressing the antitrust claim against Delta, the court postponed 

consideration of a possible antitrust defense, noting that "at 

this time there is no need to reach the question . " Order at 15 

(continued on next page ) 

6 

Appellate Case: 92-6178 Document: 010110220201 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 6 
Dr. Hinkle, citing ~C=h=e~y~n=e~y._-=S~t=a~t~e"-_=C~o=l=l~e_g~e=-_=F~a~c~u=l~t-y.,_ __ v~. 

Hufstedler, 703 F.2d 732 (3d Cir. 1983), argues that the order is 

appealable because it is indefinite, and thus unreasonably delays 

his right to litigate his claims in federal court. The stay here, 

however, is not indefinite. It will be lifted when Dr. Hinkle 

notifies the court that "his administrative proceedings have been 

fully and finally adjudicated." Order at 16. Dr. Hinkle 

hypothesizes that the Board could permanently block the 

continuation of his case in federal court by indefinitely stalling 

its proceedings against him. This concern, should it materialize, 

can be addressed through the Oklahoma state court system, which 

could presumably order the Board to act or dismiss its complaint 

against Dr. Hinkle, thus freeing him to reactivate his case in the 

district court. 

As a final strategy, Dr. Hinkle asks this court to construe 

his notice of appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus and grant 

him relief despite the interlocutory nature of the district 

court's order. We decline this invitation. This court has, on 

occasion, treated a notice of appeal as a petition for writ of 

(continued from previous page) 

(emphasis added) . As noted above, the stay order was entered 

specifically to help preserve Dr. Hinkle's ability to pursue the 

claims after the Board proceedings were completed. Id. at 14. 

Finally, the court specifically directed that the clerk 

"administratively close this case with respect to the plaintiff's 

claims for monetary relief, to be reopened when plaintiff notifies 

the Court that his administrative proceedings have been fully and 

finally adjudicated." Id. at 16 (emphasis added). As in Crotty. 

857 F . 2d at 1174, this is not a case where the district court has 

completely surrendered federal jurisdiction in favor of the state 

system. Thus, there is no finality for purposes of§ 1291. 

7 

Appellate Case: 92-6178 Document: 010110220201 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 7 
mandamus. See Kaiser Steel Corp . v. Frates (In re Kaiser Steel 

Corp.}, 911 F.2d 380, 387 (10th Cir. 1990); State Fam Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co. v. Scholes, 601 F.2d 1151 , 1154 (10th Cir. 1979). Even 

if we were to do that here, however, mandamus relief would not be 

warranted. 

Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only 

in extreme situations. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon. Inc., 449 

U. S. 33, 34 (1980 ) . Such relief "will issue only in those 

exceptional cases where the inferior court has acted wholly 

without jurisdiction or so clearly abused its discretion as to 

constitute a judicial usurpation of power." In re Kaiser Steel 

Corp . , 911 F.2d at 387. Dr. Hinkle has failed to show that the 

actions of the district court even approach this standard. 

Because the order appealed from here is not a final order, we 

dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Appeal DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

G. Thomas Van Bebber 

District Judge 

8 

Appellate Case: 92-6178 Document: 010110220201 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 8