Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04065/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04065-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JANE. JURASEK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UTAH STATE HOSPITAL; ADAM OZUNA, 

Psych. Tech.; JOE COUEY, 

Recreational Therapist, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEALF I L L j) 

Unin!d States Court of Appeal" Tenth Cirt..-uit 

DEC 1 1 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-4065 

(D. Utah) 

(D.C. No. 91-C-980-B) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

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. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Jan E. Jurasek brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action 

against the Utah State Hospital and two employees of the hospital, 

Adam Ozuna and Joe Couey, seeking damages for alleged forcible 

medication and assault, and an order restraining the defendants 

from committing such acts in the future. 

* 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. 

-1-

Appellate Case: 92-4065 Document: 010110151901 Date Filed: 12/11/1992 Page: 1 
On October 28, 1991, the district court, adopting a report 

and recommendation of the magistrate judge, issued an order 

addressing Jurasek's complaint as follows: the complaint against 

the Utah State Hospital was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d) because the hospital was protected by Eleventh Amendment 

immunity . The forcible medication claim was also dismissed 

because "there is no allegation of deficiency in the involuntary 

medication procedure." Report of October 1, 1991 (R. Vol. I Tab 

3) . However, the court allowed Jurasek to "file an amended 

complaint as to his claims for assault committed by defendants 

Ozuna and Couey." Order of October 28, 1991 (R. Vol. I Tab 5). 

Subsequently, Jurasek filed a document in the action in which 

he "move[d] for discharge from the Utah State Hospital." R. Vol. 

I Tab 8 at 13. The magistrate judge issued a second report 

recommending that the motion for release be denied since it sought 

relief cognizable only by petition for a writ of habeas corpus . 

On March 30, 1992, the district court adopted the magistrate 

judge's recommendation and denied Jurasek ' s motion for release. 

Jurasek now appeals from the two orders of the district court 

described above. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the orders in question are interlocutory. 

While the district court dismissed the Utah State Hospital as a 

defendant and denied Jurasek's "motion for release," it granted 

Jurasek leave to amend his complaint against Ozuna and Couey . 

Thus, the action is still ongoing before the district court. See 

Cook v. Rocky Mountain Bank Note Co., 974 F.2d 147 , 148 (10th Cir. 

1992); Landmark Land Co . of Oklahoma v . Buchanan, 874 F.2d 717, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-4065 Document: 010110151901 Date Filed: 12/11/1992 Page: 2 
720 (10th Cir. 1989); Thompson v. Dereta, 709 F.2d 1343, 1344 

(10th Cir. 1983) . Furthermore, "a judgment which 'adjudicates 

fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer 

than all the parties' is subject to revision and, therefore , is 

not final in the absence of a determination that 'there is no just 

reason for delay and upon an express direction for entry of 

judgment . '" Bristol v. Fibreboard Corp., 789 F . 2d 846, 848 (10th 

Cir. 1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ . P. 54(b)). 

Subject to exceptions not applicable here, 1 

we have jurisdiction to review only "final decisions." 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see 

Cook, 974 F.2d at 148. As explained, the orders in question are 

not final decisions. Accordingly , the appeal is DISMISSED. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

1 To the extent that jurisdiction may arguably lie under 28 

U. S.C. § 1292(a) (1), with respect to the motion for release, we 

hold, alternatively, that the district court correctly concluded 

that Jurasek must file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, after exhausting his claim in the 

state courts, in order to raise the issue of release from the 

hospital. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Hartmann v. 

Scott, 488 F.2d 1215, 1222 (8th Cir. 1973). 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-4065 Document: 010110151901 Date Filed: 12/11/1992 Page: 3