Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01217/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01217-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Alvarez
Appellee
Leroy Buhl
Not Party
John Dignam
Appellee
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Appellee
Debra Payne
Appellee
Jeremy Vaughn Pinson
Appellant
Mikeal G. Stine
Not Party
U.S. Dept. of Justice
Appellee
T. Vialpando
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

JEREMY PINSON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

and

LEROY BUHL; MIKEAL G. STINE, 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN 

DIGNAM; CHARLES ALVAREZ; T. 

VIALPANDO; DEBRA PAYNE, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

__________________________________

No. 15-1217

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01179-GPG)

(D. Colo.)

MIKEAL G. STINE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

and 

LEROY BUHL; JEREMY VAUGHN 

PINSON, 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE; FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN 

DIGNAM; CHARLES ALVAREZ; T. 

VIALPANDO; DEBRA PAYNE, 

No. 15-1223

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01179-GPG)

(D. Colo.)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 14, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1217 Document: 01019490515 Date Filed: 09/14/2015 Page: 1 
2

 Defendants - Appellees.

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before GORSUCH, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

These matters are before the court on Appellant Mikeal Stine’s response to the 

court’s order to show cause why these appeals should not be dismissed for lack of 

appellate jurisdiction. Appellant Jeremy Pinson has not responded to the order. Given 

that both appeals arise out of the same district court case and share the same procedural 

history and the same jurisdictional defect, we address both appeals together.

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 parties, “any 

order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates . . . the rights and liabilities 

of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the . . . parties and may 

be revised at any time before the entry of [final judgment].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

Messrs. Pinson and Stine and a third plaintiff, Leroy Buhl, originally filed the 

underlying action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The District of 

Columbia transferred the matter to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, 

where Messrs. Pinson and Stine are both subject to filing restrictions. The District of 

Appellate Case: 15-1217 Document: 01019490515 Date Filed: 09/14/2015 Page: 2 
3

Colorado immediately dismissed them as plaintiffs in the case for failure to comply with 

their respective filing restrictions. Messrs. Pinson and Stine separately appealed the 

district court’s dismissal order. The district court has not yet resolved Mr. Buhl’s claims. 

As a result, the district court’s dismissal of Messrs. Pinson and Stine was not a final 

decision. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider these 

appeals. This dismissal does not preclude Messrs. Pinson and Stine from filing a timely 

appeal after entry of final judgment.

APPEALS DISMISSED. All pending motions are denied as moot.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-1217 Document: 01019490515 Date Filed: 09/14/2015 Page: 3