Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-24-05132/USCOURTS-ca10-24-05132-0/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

_________________________________

JARRIN JACKSON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KELLY GREENOUGH; M. JOHN KANE, 

IV; GENTNER DRUMMOND, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 24-5132

(D.C. No. 4:24-CV-00379-JFH-CDL)

(N.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and EID, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before us sua sponte to consider the court’s jurisdiction over this 

appeal. See Hill v. Vanderbilt Cap. Advisors, LLC, 702 F.3d 1220, 1223 (10th Cir. 2012) 

(this court has “an independent duty to examine [its] own jurisdiction”).

Appellant Jarrin Jackson seeks to appeal from an interlocutory order striking his 

various “notices.” [ECF Nos. 29, 30, 31 (“notices”); 32 (text-only order striking the 

“notices”)].

We entered an order directing Mr. Jackson to explain the basis for this court’s 

jurisdiction over this appeal. We have before us Mr. Jackson’s opening brief, which we 

have construed as his response to that order. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & 

Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (we give pro se submissions a liberal 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 13, 2024

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 24-5132 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 12/13/2024 Page: 1
2

construction). Upon consideration of Mr. Jackson’s as-construed response to our order, 

the district court docket, and the applicable law, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction 

over this appeal for the following reasons. 

Generally, this court’s jurisdiction is limited to review of final decisions. 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. A final decision is one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves 

nothing for the court to do but execute judgment.” Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., Ohio, 

527 U.S. 198, 204 (1999) (internal quotations omitted).

The order striking Mr. Jackson’s “notices” did not end this litigation on the merits. 

Indeed, Mr. Jackson’s action remains pending in the district court. In short, the order Mr. 

Jackson seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor does it fit within any of the recognized 

exceptions to the finality doctrine. Accordingly, it is not presently appealable, and we are 

without jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

Appellate Case: 24-5132 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 12/13/2024 Page: 2