Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03081/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03081-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3081

___________

Gary V. Reilly, Jr. *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri and

Jack Merritt; Bill Hedrick, * Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

*

Appellees. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ *

*

No. 06-3750 *

___________ *

*

In re: Gary V. Reilly, Jr., *

*

Petitioner. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2007

Filed: September 24, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 06-3081 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/24/2007 Entry ID: 3354680
1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

-2-

Missouri pretrial detainee Gary Reilly appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his

motions for injunctive relief, to add defendants, and for appointment of a special

master. Reilly also moves in this court for permission to appeal in forma pauperis

(IFP), for injunctive relief, and for appointment of a special master, and has petitioned

for a writ of mandamus to “re-open” his district court case.

We grant Reilly IFP status, leaving fee collection to the district court. See

Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484-85 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). As to the

merits, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal from the district court’s denial of

Reilly’s motion to add defendants. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a)(1), (b); Liddell

v. Bd. of Educ., 693 F.2d 721, 726 (8th Cir. 1981) (appellate jurisdiction was lacking

to review denial of motion to amend complaint). Likewise, we lack jurisdiction over

the appeal from the district court’s denial of a special master. SeeCoopers & Lybrand

v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978) (collateral-order doctrine); cf. Grilli v. Metro.

Life Ins. Co., 78 F.3d 1533, 1538 (11th Cir. 1996) (order referring matter to special

master is not appealable as final order under § 1291). 

As for the denial of Reilly’s motion for injunctive relief, over which we do have

jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we find that the district court did not abuse

its discretion, clearly err, or commit any legal error in concluding that the balance of

the pertinent factors favors denial of the requested injunction. See Manion v. Nagin,

255 F.3d 535, 538 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review); Dataphase Sys., Inc.v. C L

Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (factors). We therefore affirm

the denial of the motion for injunctive relief. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Accordingly, we grant IFP status; we affirm the denial of the motion for

injunctive relief; and we deny Reilly’s pending motions for injunctive relief and for

Appellate Case: 06-3081 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/24/2007 Entry ID: 3354680
-3-

appointment of a special master. We also deny Reilly’s mandamus petition, because

Reilly’s action is still pending in the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3081 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/24/2007 Entry ID: 3354680