Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-04090/USCOURTS-ca10-15-04090-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

RICHARD DEWRAY HACKFORD, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH; GARY HERBERT; 

SEAN D. REYES; JEANNINE 

STRASBURG; BRAD DRAPER; TOM 

KOSMACK; JOEL D. BERRETT; MIKE 

KENDALL; DUCHESNE COUNTY; 

UINTAH COUNTY; VERNAL CITY; 

ROOSEVELT CITY; PETE BUTCHER; 

JOE MOYNIER; SPLIT MOUNTAIN 

YOUTH CENTER; THE CORPORATION 

OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH 

OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY 

SAINTS; UTE INDIAN TRIBE, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-4090

(D.C. No. 2:14-CV-00872-RJS-BCW)

(D. Utah)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Pro se plaintiff Richard Dewray Hackford appeals the district court’s June 16, 

2015 interlocutory order. This court entered an order to show cause as to why the appeal 

should not be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Mr. Hackford filed a response. 

After considering his response and the applicable law, we now dismiss the appeal. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 13, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-4090 Document: 01019458709 Date Filed: 07/13/2015 Page: 1 
2

Mr. Hackford appeals the district court’s June 16, 2015 order, which declined to 

enter default judgment, identified several deficiencies with the plaintiff’s amended 

complaint, and directed him to file a second amended complaint within 30 days. The 

district court case remains ongoing. Time still remains for Mr. Hackford to file a second 

amended complaint. Neither a final order disposing of all claims against all parties nor a 

final judgment has been entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. 

This court generally has jurisdiction to review only final decisions of district 

courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A final decision is one that fully terminates all matters as to all 

parties and causes of action and leaves nothing for the district court to do but execute the 

judgment. Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 712 (1996); Harolds Stores, 

Inc. v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 82 F.3d 1533, 1541 (10th Cir. 1996). Piecemeal review 

of interlocutory district court orders is generally not allowed. Southern Ute Indian Tribe 

v. Leavitt, 564 F.3d 1198, 1207 (10th Cir. 2009). This court has held that an order 

granting a plaintiff leave to amend a complaint does not constitute a final, immediately 

appealable decision. Trotter v. Regents of Univ. of N.M., 219 F.3d 1179, 1182-83 (10th 

Cir. 2000). Similarly, an order denying a motion for entry of default judgment is not 

considered final for purposes of appeal. See Bird v. Reese, 875 F.2d 256, 256 (9th Cir. 

1989).

Here, the district court case remains ongoing. The district court’s June 16, 2015 

order addressed multiple procedural issues. The court prospectively warned that the 

action would be dismissed if the plaintiff failed to comply with the order, but did not 

Appellate Case: 15-4090 Document: 01019458709 Date Filed: 07/13/2015 Page: 2 
3

dismiss the action. Thus, the order being appealed is not a final decision of the district 

court, and we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal at this time.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-4090 Document: 01019458709 Date Filed: 07/13/2015 Page: 3