Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03416/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03416-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Ralph Erickson, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3416

___________

Leroy K. Wheeler, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

Karen M. Aamodt; S. Michelle *

Bredemeier, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 2, 2006

Filed: August 11, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

North Dakota state prisoner Leroy Wheeler appeals the district court’s1

 denial

of his “Petition for Panel Rehearing.” We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Wheeler filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against two court reporters,

complaining that inaccuracies in transcripts they prepared--of a preliminary hearing

in Wheeler’s state criminal matter--caused him to be unjustly incarcerated. Upon

Appellate Case: 05-3416 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2006 Entry ID: 2077396
2

The Honorable Karen K. Klein, United States Magistrate Judge for the District

of North Dakota

-2-

initial review, the magistrate judge2

 issued an order in which she concluded that

Wheeler’s claim was more properly brought as a habeas petition. She directed the

clerk to send Wheeler the appropriate forms, and noted that Wheeler could appeal the

magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order to the district court. See D.N.D. R.

72.1(E)(3). Wheeler did so, and the district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s

order. Wheeler then filed a “Petition for Panel Rehearing,” which the district court

treated as a motion to reconsider, and denied.

Neither the order Wheeler appeals nor the district court’s earlier order,

affirming the magistrate judge’s order, was a final order, an appealable interlocutory

order, or appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts

of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions); 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292 (granting appellate jurisdiction over specified interlocutory orders); Kassuelke

v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 223 F.3d 929, 931 (8th Cir. 2000) (explaining collateral

order doctrine); Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. United Transp. Union, 3 F.3d 255, 258 (8th

Cir. 1993) (final decision generally is one which ends litigation on merits and leaves

nothing for court to do but execute judgment); Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521,

522-23 (8th Cir. 1991) (appellate courts have obligation to examine their own

jurisdiction and to raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte when there is indication that

jurisdiction is lacking).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We also deny

Wheeler’s pending motion for appellate counsel. We note that Wheeler may, of

course, appeal any final order subsequently entered with regard to his § 1983 action.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3416 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2006 Entry ID: 2077396