Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07109/USCOURTS-ca10-91-07109-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CHARLES ROBERT DAY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

F IL 1~D 

Unitro Stab!: Court m Appenlg 'r - 1 - . - . ... ! .. 

MAYO G 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk . 

v. ) 

) 

No . 91-7109 

DAN REYNOLDS; GARY D. 

WILLIAM THOMPSON: and 

SAFFLE, 

MAYNARD;) 

JAMES ) 

) 

(E.D. Okla. No. CIV-91-327-S) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN , BARRETT, and EBEL, Circuit Judges.** 

This is an appeal from the district court's denial of the 

Appellant's motion for leave to proceed in discovery. Because we 

do not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order denying a 

discovery request, we dismiss this appeal. 

* 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 . 

** 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 . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34 . 1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument . 

Appellate Case: 91-7109 Document: 010110247634 Date Filed: 05/06/1992 Page: 1
Only "final decisions" are appealable under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. 1 "Pretrial discovery orders are ordinarily not appealable 

as final orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291." Graham v. Gray, 827 F.2d 

697 (10th Cir. 1987) (citing FTC v. Alaska Land Leasing, Inc., 778 

F.2d 577, 578 (10th Cir. 1985). 2 The Appellant suggests, and we 

3 

are aware of, no applicable exception to this general rule. 

Thus, we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. 

1 There is no indication in the record that this appeal has 

been certified pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 1292(b), as necessary for 

appeal under that statute. 

2 Although Graham and FTC involved orders compelling discovery, 

rather than orders denying discovery, we do not believe that there 

is any relevant distinction between such orders for purposes of 

appealability. Other circuits have generally made no distinction 

between orders compelling discovery and those denying discovery. 

See, e.g., U.A.W. v. National Caucus of labor Comms., 525 F.2d 323 

(2d Cir. 1975) (dismissing appeal of order denying leave to take 

depositions by tape recorder, saying "[a]s a general rule orders 

denying or directing discovery are interlocutory and therefor not 

appealable except as part of a final decision.") (emphasis added). 

3 The Appellant suggests that he is entitled to appeal an order 

that does not dispose of all of the claims in a suit under 

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985). In Graham, however, we 

noted that appeals under Mitchell will lie only where the order 

involves an issue of qualified immunity. 827 F.2d at 681. 

Because the order denying discovery in the case at bar does not 

involve issues of immunity, Mitchell is inapposite. 

Mitchell was decided under Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949), which noted a "small class" 

of orders that, though not dispositive of all issues in a suit, 

are nevertheless appealable under§ 1291. The Cohen exception, 

however, is limited to those orders that "conclusively determine 

the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely 

separate from the merits of the action, and [are] effectively 

unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." Coopers & Lybrand 

v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978). The district court's order 

denying discovery fails to satisfy the Cohen test, as we see no 

barrier to its review on appeal. 

Finally, the Appellant attempts to evade the rule against 

appeal of non-final orders by invoking our mandamus power. We do 

not believe that the use of that power is warranted here. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 91-7109 Document: 010110247634 Date Filed: 05/06/1992 Page: 2
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED . 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 91-7109 Document: 010110247634 Date Filed: 05/06/1992 Page: 3