Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01580/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01580-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeanne J.

Graham, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 07-1108/1580

___________

Ikechi Kallys Albert, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeals from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Qwest Communications International, *

Inc.; Ryan Stainiger; Allied Interstate, * [UNPUBLISHED]

West Asset Management; Omnium *

Worldwide, Inc., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 30, 2007 

Filed: April 10, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Ikechi Kallys Albert (Albert) appeals the district

court’s1

 orders dismissing some defendants and denying his motion for a preliminary

injunction, and the court’s subsequent order clarifying previous orders. Albert has

Appellate Case: 07-1580 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/10/2007 Entry ID: 3297043
-2-

also petitioned for a writ of mandamus. We dismiss the two appeals for want of

jurisdiction, and we deny mandamus relief.

The first order appealed is an October 18, 2006 order dismissing claims against

three of the five defendants and denying injunctive relief. The dismissal of the

defendants is not a final order because the claims against the remaining two

defendants were not disposed of in the October 18 order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(defining appellate jurisdiction over final district court decisions); Bullock v. Baptist

Mem’l Hosp., 817 F.2d 58, 59 (8th Cir. 1987) (holding an order dismissing complaint

as to fewer than all defendants is not final order within meaning of § 1291).

Additionally, the district court neither certified the order for immediate appeal, nor

directed entry of a partial final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (stating a district

court may certify a non-final order for appeal when the order involves a controlling

question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion); Fed.

R. Civ. P. 54(b) (stating a district court may expressly direct the entry of final

judgment as to fewer than all claims or parties). 

Although the October 18 order as a whole is not immediately appealable, we

have interlocutory appellate jurisdiction to review that part of the order denying

injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (allowing an appeal from an

interlocutory order granting or denying injunctive relief). However, the December 22

notice of appeal from the October 18 order is untimely, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A),

and we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to reopen

the time to file the appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). In particular, we conclude the

district court did not clearly err in finding Albert failed to show he did not receive

notice of the October 18 order. See Am. Boat Co. v. Unknown Sunken Barge, 418

F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2005) (reviewing for clear error the district court’s factual

determination that the appellant received notice). 

Appellate Case: 07-1580 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/10/2007 Entry ID: 3297043
-3-

The second order appealed, a January 26, 2007 order granting in forma pauperis

status and clarifying previous orders, is also not an order over which we have

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292. 

Therefore, we dismiss the two appeals for want of jurisdiction. Finally, we

deny mandamus relief as unwarranted. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296,

309 (1989) (declaring mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy”); In re Lane, 801 F.2d

1040, 1042 (8th Cir. 1986) (stating mandamus standard, which includes petitioner

must have no other adequate alternative remedy).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1580 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/10/2007 Entry ID: 3297043