Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03003/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03003-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 620
Nature of Suit: Forfeiture and Penalty - Food and Drug Acts
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 'F I L ~ApPfJ&lf. 

Unit,4 ~~rcuit TENTH CIRCUIT ~ .. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

ONE PARCEL OF REAL PROPERTY 

DESCRIBED AS LOT 41, BERRYHILL 

FARM ESTATES, a subdivision in 

Johnson County, Kansas, also 

known as 6401 West 181st Street, 

Stilwell, Kansas, together with 

all its buildings, appurtenances 

and fixtures, furnishings, and 

equipment within the buildings, 

appurtenances, and improvements, 

Defendant, 

TOMMIE LEE DUNMORE, 

Claimant-Appellant . 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FEBO 5 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3003 

(D.C. No. 89-CV-2150-V) 

(D. Kan. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, 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. 

*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: 92-3003 Document: 010110166201 Date Filed: 02/05/1993 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Claimant-appellant Tommie Lee Dunmore appeals the district 

court's order partially lifting a stay of proceedings in a civil 

forfeiture case. The government brought a civil forfeiture action 

under 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a ) (6 ) against one parcel of real property 

and personal property located in the home on that property. At 

the request of Mr. Dunmore, the alleged purchaser of this property, the district court entered a stay of the civil proceedings 

pending a criminal investigation in the Western District of 

Missouri. After a trial in the Missouri district court, the real 

property was adjudged subject to forfeiture .

1 Following that 

judgment, the government requested a partial lift of the stay to 

permit the forfeiture proceeding to continue against the personal 

property. The grant of that order is the subject of this appeal . 

The government argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to 

hear this appeal because the district court's order is not an 

appealable judgment. The courts of appeals have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C § 1291 to hear appeals from all final decisions of 

the district courts. Appellate courts also have jurisdiction over 

interlocutory orders "granting, continuing, modifying , refusing or 

1 The government intends to file a motion to lift the stay with 

respect to the real property and "move to dismiss the action 

against that property as moot because the real property has now 

been forfeited in the related criminal action in the Western 

District of Missouri . " Appellee's Br. at 9. 

- 2-

Appellate Case: 92-3003 Document: 010110166201 Date Filed: 02/05/1993 Page: 2 
dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (1). 

A court's "refusal to stay the foreclosure proceeding to 

await the determination of another pending action is not an order 

granting or refusing an injunction and hence is not appealable." 

United States v. Chelsea Towers. Inc., 404 F.2d 329, 330 (3d Cir. 

1968 ). See also Pepper v. Miani, 734 F.2d 1420, 1422 (10th Cir. 

1984 ) (no jurisdiction to review denial of stay where defendants 

not seeking stay to permit prior determination of equitable 

defense). Further, an order denying a motion to stay is not a 

final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Ephraim Freightways. Inc. 

v. Red Ball Motor Freight. Inc., 376 F.2d 40, 41 (10th Cir. ) , 

cert. denied, 389 U.S. 29 (1967). 

Both a refusal to stay proceedings and the lifting of a stay 

carry the same practical effect: allowing the underlying suit to 

go forward. The partial lifting of the stay has denied Mr. 

Dunmore no rights which he cannot later appeal at the end of the 

foreclosure proceedings. 

In light of the above discussion, we hold that we lack 

jurisdiction to hear this appeal. 2 APPEAL DISMISSED. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith . 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

2 Given our lack of jurisdiction, we deny Mr . Dunmore's motion 

for appointment of counsel. 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 92-3003 Document: 010110166201 Date Filed: 02/05/1993 Page: 3 
Appellate Case: 92-3003 Document: 010110166201 Date Filed: 02/05/1993 Page: 4