Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-09-07081/USCOURTS-ca10-09-07081-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 5, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Clerk of Court

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL D. LOWERY; JAMES

ERNEST LANE,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

DREW EDMONDSON, Attorney General

of Oklahoma; JUSTIN JONES, Director,

Oklahoma Department of Corrections;

DEBBIE L. MORTON; LEO BROWN,

Religious Coordinator; BOBBY JOE

BOYD, Asst. Warden/Religious Director;

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF

AMERICA; DAVIS CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-7081 

(D.C. No. 6:09-CV-00286-RAW-SPS)

(E.D. Okla.)

ORDER

Before KELLY, BRISCOE, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs, state prisoners proceeding pro se, seek to appeal the district court’s July

23, 2009 Order denying their motion to appoint counsel and request for class action

certification. 

Appellate Case: 09-7081 Document: 01018342569 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 1
-2-

Plaintiffs’ civil rights action is proceeding before the district court. We dismiss for lack

of jurisdiction. The order appealed is interlocutory.

A final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 is one that disposes of all the issues on

the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. See

Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 204 (1999) (citing Van Cauwenberghe

v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 521-22 (1988)). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has stressed

that very few types of interlocutory orders qualify as immediately appealable collateral

orders because the requirements are strict and “unless they are kept so, the underlying

doctrine will overpower the substantial finality interests § 1291 is meant to further.” Will

v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349-50 (2006).

Upon review, the court concludes that the order appealed by Plaintiffs does not

constitute a final or immediately appealable decision under § 1291 or under any

recognized exception to the final judgment rule. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f); see also

Coopers & Lyrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 477 (1978) (collateral order exception does

not apply to prejudgment orders denying class certification); Cotner v. Mason, 657 F.2d

1390, 1391-92 (10th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (denial of motion to appoint counsel in civil

case is interlocutory and not appealable until entry of final judgment). The district

court’s July 23, 2009 Order can be effectively reviewed on appeal following entry of

final judgment by the district court in Plaintiffs’ civil rights action.

Appellate Case: 09-7081 Document: 01018342569 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 2
-3-

The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. All pending motions

are DENIED.

Entered for the Court,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk

Kathleen T. Clifford

Attorney - Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-7081 Document: 01018342569 Date Filed: 01/05/2010 Page: 3