Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-14-04156/USCOURTS-ca10-14-04156-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

JAKE ROWLEY, individually and on 

behalf of a plaintiff class of those similarly 

situated, et al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

DANIEL D. McARTHUR, in his 

supervisory and official capacities, et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 14-4156

(D.C. No. 2:13-CV-00959-DB)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before GORSUCH, HOLMES, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the Court on Defendants – Appellees’ motion to dismiss this 

appeal for want of jurisdiction due to the lack of a final appealable order. For the reasons 

set forth below, and after careful consideration of Appellees’ motion and Appellants’ 

response, we grant the motion and deny Appellants’ request for leave to seek certification 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 

Generally, this Court’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final decisions of 

United States District Courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A final decision is “‘one which ends the 

litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’” 

Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406, 419, 128 S. Ct. 1970, 1981 (2008) (quoting Catlin v. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 9, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-4156 Document: 01019367683 Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Page: 1 
2

United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S. Ct. 631, 89 L. Ed. 911 (1945)). Appellants appeal 

from the district court’s dismissal of their facial Fourth Amendment challenge to certain 

ordinances enacted and enforced by Appellees. The district court’s dismissal order leaves 

some of Appellants’ claims unresolved, and is therefore not a final appealable order 

under § 1291. See Atiya v. Salt Lake County, 988 F.2d 1013, 1016 (10th Cir.1993) (an 

order that adjudicates fewer than all of the claims or the liabilities of all of the parties is 

not a final appealable order). 

Acknowledging this jurisdictional defect, Appellants request leave to seek a Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification from the district court. Rule 54(b) certifications “are not to 

be made routinely” and are only appropriate when the district court determines that (1) 

the order for which certification is sought is a final order; and (2) there is no just reason 

to delay review of the final order until it has conclusively ruled on all claims presented by 

the parties to the case. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Bruner, 259 F.3d 1236, 1242 

(10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

“An order is not final for the purposes of Rule 54(b) unless the claims resolved are 

distinct and separable from the claims left unresolved.” Id. at 1243. When determining 

whether remaining claims are distinct and separable from claims that have been resolved, 

courts “‘have concentrated on two factors: (1) the factual overlap (or lack thereof) 

between the claims disposed of and the remaining claims, and (2) whether the claims 

disposed of and the remaining claims seek separate relief.’” Id. at 1242 (quoting James 

Wm. Moore, et al., Moore's Fed. Prac.3d § 202.06[2] (3d ed.1999)). 

Appellate Case: 14-4156 Document: 01019367683 Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Page: 2 
3

Both the dismissed claim at issue in this appeal and one of Plaintiffs’ unresolved 

claims are premised on alleged Fourth Amendment violations arising from the 

ordinances’ warrantless search provisions. In addition, the relief sought by Plaintiffs is 

largely the same for both claims (i.e., damages, a permanent injunction, attorneys’ fees 

and costs). Thus, the facial Fourth Amendment challenge at issue in this appeal and 

Appellants’ unresolved as-applied Fourth Amendment challenge are not distinct and 

separable; the district court’s order dismissing Plaintiffs – Appellants’ facial Fourth 

Amendment challenge cannot be considered a final order for Rule 54(b) purposes. 

In light of the foregoing, this appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction due 

to the lack of a final appealable order, and Plaintiffs – Appellants’ request for leave to 

seek a Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification is DENIED.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Chris Wolpert

 Chief Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 14-4156 Document: 01019367683 Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Page: 3