Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03113/USCOURTS-ca10-15-03113-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jim Bethards
Not Party
Tim Boese
Appellee
Carman Clark
Appellee
Todd Hanchett
Not Party
Harvey County District Court
Not Party
Harvey County Sheriff's Department
Not Party
Kent Mayfield
Appellant
Tonya Mayfield
Appellant
Scott Motes
Not Party
Greg Nye
Not Party
T. Walton
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

KENT MAYFIELD; TONYA 

MAYFIELD, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

T. WALTON, Sheriff; CARMAN CLARK, 

Sheriff Deputy; TIM BOESE, Corporal, 

 Defendants - Appellees,

and

HARVEY COUNTY SHERIFF'S 

DEPARTMENT; HARVEY COUNTY 

DISTRICT COURT; JIM BETHARDS, 

Part Time Deputy; SCOTT MOTES, 

Sergeant; TODD HANCHETT, 

Undersheriff; GREG NYE, District 

Attorney; JOHN DOE (1); JOHN DOE (2); 

JOHN DOE (3); JANE DOE (1); JANE 

DOE (2); JANE DOE (3), 

 Defendants.

No. 15-3113

(D.C. No. 6:14-CV-01307-JTM-KGG)

(D. Kan.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before us on Kent and Tonya Mayfields’ response to the court’s 

order to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The 

Mayfields seek to appeal the district court’s March 26, 2015 dismissal of Harvey County 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 16, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-3113 Document: 01019491615 Date Filed: 09/16/2015 Page: 1 
2

Sheriff T. Walton, Sheriff’s Deputy Carman Clark, and Corporal Tim Boese. In the same 

order, the district court allowed one claim against Harvey County Sheriff’s Deputy Jim 

Bethards to proceed and that claim remains pending in the district court.

Except in certain limited circumstances that are not present here, this court’s 

appellate jurisdiction is restricted to review of final decisions. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A final 

decision is one that “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to 

do but execute judgment.” Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 204 

(1999) (internal quotations omitted). When an action involves multiple claims or 

multiple parties, “any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer 

than all claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the 

action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry 

of [final judgment].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

In response to our show cause order, the Mayfields argue that the dismissal of 

Deputy Clark is a final order because the district court dismissed the claims against 

Deputy Clark with prejudice. Notwithstanding the dismissal with prejudice, so long as 

any claims remain pending in the district court, the order is not final within the meaning 

of 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the district court’s March 26, 2015 order did not resolve 

all claims against all parties, it was not a final decision. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction 

to consider this appeal. This dismissal does not preclude the Mayfields from filing a 

Appellate Case: 15-3113 Document: 01019491615 Date Filed: 09/16/2015 Page: 2 
3

timely appeal after entry of final judgment.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-3113 Document: 01019491615 Date Filed: 09/16/2015 Page: 3