Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03152/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03152-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ARTHUR J. CLEMENS I JR. I ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

DEC 18 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 91-3152 

) 

STATE OF KANSAS 1 MIAMI COUNTY ) 

DISTRICT COURT, KANSAS COURT OF ) 

APPEALS I JAMES H. CLEMENS I ) 

DAVID E. CLEMENS 1 ARTHUR J. ) 

CLEMENS, SR., ROBERT NICHOLSON, ) 

MIAMI COUNTY NATIONAL BANK, ) 

RICHARD CLEMENS 1 TIMOTHY CLEMENS 1 ) 

KATHERINE MIENTKA, JAMES ROBERT ) 

CLEMENS, CHRISTOPHER CLEMENS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas 

(D.C. No. 90-4235-R) 

On the briefs: 

Arthur J. Clemens, Jr., ProSe. 

Robert T. Stephan, Attorney General and Carl A. Gallagher, 

Assistant Attorney General, Topeka, Kansas, for 

Defendants-Appellees, State of Kansas, Kansas Court of Appeals and 

the ~ami County District Court. 

Before MCKAY, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 91-3152 Document: 01019326785 Date Filed: 12/18/1991 Page: 1 
Arthur Clemens is suing the State of Kansas, the ~ami County 

District Court, the Kansas Court of Appeals, and a number of 

individuals, many of whom appear to be Mr. Clemens' relatives. 

The district court has dismissed the three state defendants 

pursuant to their Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal 

court. Mr. Clemens now appeals this dismissal. 1 

Because Mr. Clemens' suit against the individual defendants 

remains pending in the district court, the order dismissing the 

state defendants is not final. We join those circuits that have 

concluded that an order granting immunity is not a collateral 

order which is immediately appealable under 28 u.s.c. §1291 

(1988), as interpreted by Cohen v. Beneficial Industr. Loan Corp., 

337 u.s. 541, 546 (1949). See Branson v. City of Los Angeles, 912 

F.2d 334, 335 (9th Cir. 1990); Theis v. Smith, 827 F.2d 260, 261 

(7th Cir. 1987); Coe v. Ziegler, 817 F.2d 29, 30 (6th Cir. 1987); 

Thompson v. Betts, 754 F.2d 1243, 1246 (5th Cir. 1985). The 

rationale for allowing interlocutory appeal of an order denying 

immunity is that the defendant's right to be free from standing 

trial can not be effectively vindicated on appeal after trial. 

See ~tchell v. Forsyth, 472 u.s. 511, 524-30 (1985); Pueblo 

Neighborhood Health Centers. Inc. v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 644 

1 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); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3152 Document: 01019326785 Date Filed: 12/18/1991 Page: 2 
(lOth Cir. 1988). A grant of immunity, in contrast, "may be fully 

and effectively reviewed after final judgment. Accordingly, it 

does not fall under the collateral order doctrine." Branson, 912 

F.2d at 335. 

We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3152 Document: 01019326785 Date Filed: 12/18/1991 Page: 3