Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-19-07065/USCOURTS-ca10-19-07065-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

JAMES EZELL, III, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAMES YATES, Warden, Davis 

Correctional Facility; DEPUTY WARDEN 

GENTRY, Deputy Warden; (FNU) 

PEREZ, Deputy Warden, Davis 

Correctional Facility; TERRY 

UNDERWOOD, Grievance Coordinator, 

Davis Correctional Facility; JESSICA 

PATTERSON, Law Library Supervisor, 

Davis Correctional Facility; TIFFANY 

ADE, Echo Maximum Unit Manager, 

Davis Correctional Facility; S. PFAFF; 

CARLA HOOVER, AKA Carl Hoover; 

SCOTT CROW, Interim Director, 

Oklahoma Department of Corrections; 

MARK KNUTSON, Designee, Oklahoma 

Department of Corrections; DAVID A. 

CINCOTTA, General Counsel, Oklahoma 

Department of Corrections, 

 Defendants - Appellees, 

and

DAMON HININGER, CEO of Core Civic; 

JASON BRYANT, Warden, Joseph Harp 

Correctional Center; R. HODGSON, 

Captain, James Crabtree Correctional 

Center; AUSTIN PARKS, Lt., James 

Crabtree Correctional Center; SERGEANT 

WALKER, Correctional Officer, James 

Crabtree Correctional Center; JAMES 

NALL, Captain, James Crabtree 

No. 19-7065

(D.C. No. 6:19-CV-00302-JHP-SPS)

(E.D. Okla.)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 7, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 19-7065 Document: 010110284785 Date Filed: 01/07/2020 Page: 1
2

Correctional Center, 

 Defendants.

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

We raise sua sponte the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal. James Ezell, III, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal of the district 

court’s November 14, 2019 order denying his motion for appointment of counsel.

Mr. Ezell’s responses to this court’s show cause order do not establish that the 

November 14, 2019 order is appealable at this time. Generally, this court’s jurisdiction is 

limited to review of final decisions. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see also Utah v. Norton, 396 F.3d 

1281, 1286 (10th Cir. 2005) (describing final decisions as those that end the litigation on 

the merits and leave nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment); Cotner v. 

Mason, 657 F.2d 1390, 1392 (10th Cir. 1981) (per curiam) (“An order denying a motion 

for appointment of counsel in a civil case thus plainly falls within the large class of orders 

that are indeed reviewable after final judgment. . . .”) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Review of the district court docket reflects that the district court has not 

yet entered a final decision. 

Appellate Case: 19-7065 Document: 010110284785 Date Filed: 01/07/2020 Page: 2
3

Because this court does not have jurisdiction over the November 14, 2019 order at 

this time, the appeal is dismissed, and all other relief requested is denied. 

DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 19-7065 Document: 010110284785 Date Filed: 01/07/2020 Page: 3