Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03218/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03218-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

WILLIS JONES, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KENNETH L. MCGUIRE; JAMES 

HEIMGARTNER; VICKIE 

BRUMGARDT,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-3218

(D.C. No. 5:14-CV-03201-SAC-DJW)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

This matter is before the court following receipt of a letter from the appellant 

dated October 5, 2015. We have construed this letter as the appellant’s response to our 

directive to address the potentially dispositive issue of the lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

10th Cir. R. 27.2(B)(1).

By order entered September 16, 2015, we challenged the appellant to demonstrate 

that appellate jurisdiction exists. On September 29, 2015, the court received a document 

not from the appellant but submitted on his behalf arguing the merits of the underlying 

district court case. We entered an order the same day rejecting the filing of a document 

not drafted by a lawyer licensed to practice in this court and not addressing the 

jurisdictional question raised in our September 16, 2015 order. We provided the appellant 

with another chance to address appellate jurisdiction (only), and warned him that any 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 9, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-3218 Document: 01019504849 Date Filed: 10/09/2015 Page: 1 
2

additional response must be written by him and must address (only) appellate 

jurisdiction. We further advised that a nonresponsive document would be grounds for 

dismissal for failure to prosecute the appeal. See 10th Cir. R. 42.1.

Despite the statement in the appellant’s letter that he is attempting to answer the

court’s question about jurisdiction, the letter does not address appellate jurisdiction at all. 

The letter attempts to explain the basis for his district court case. Moreover, we reviewed 

the district court docket once again, and no orders have been entered from which the 

appellant can appeal at this time.

Because the appellant’s attempt at a response is not actually responsive to our 

jurisdictional challenge and we advised the appellant that a nonresponsive document 

would be grounds for dismissal, the captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution 

pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 42.1. If necessary, the appellant may appeal from a final decision 

once entered by the district court, provided that all applicable rules are followed.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-3218 Document: 01019504849 Date Filed: 10/09/2015 Page: 2