Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03764/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03764-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3764

___________

Barbara Jean Seals, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Missouri Division of Administration, * Appeal from the United States

City of St. Louis; Missouri Department * District Court for the

of Labor and Industrial Relations; * Eastern District of Missouri.

City of St. Louis; Missouri Department *

of Revenue; Department of Revenue * [UNPUBLISHED]

Service Center; Robert Young Building *

Internal Revenue Service Center; *

Department of Housing and Urban *

Development; Christopher “Kit” Bond; *

John Ashcroft, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 3, 2005

Filed: August 9, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Barbara J. Seals appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her civil

action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) without prejudice. We dismiss the appeal for

Appellate Case: 04-3764 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2005 Entry ID: 1937922
-2-

want of jurisdiction. The judgment is not a final, appealable order because it does not

rule on claims against a number of defendants--for example, Ameren UE, Laclede

Gas Company, and Today Office Staffing, Inc.--who were clearly named in various

pleadings that were incorporated into the complaint by the court as amended

complaints. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (creating appellate jurisdiction over final decisions

of district courts); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (“order or other form of decision, however

designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of

fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or

parties”). 

Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Thomas v.

Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 522-24 (8th Cir. 1991) (appellate courts have obligation to

raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte “when there is an indication that jurisdiction is

lacking”; appeal was “clearly premature” where some claims were still pending).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3764 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2005 Entry ID: 1937922