Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-07060/USCOURTS-ca10-16-07060-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mr. Copich
Appellee
Sgt. Graham
Appellee
Lt. Horvant
Appellee
Wade Lay
Appellant
Dr. Marker
Appellee
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Appellee
Oklahoma State Penitentiary
Appellee
David Orman
Appellee
Robert Patton
Appellee
Jerry Perry
Appellee
Neamyra Riddle
Appellee
Anita Trammel
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

WADE LAY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DAVID ORMAN, Postal Agent, OSP; 

NEAMYRA RIDDLE, Postal Agent 

Director, OSP; ANITA TRAMMEL, 

Warden; JERRY PERRY, Unit Mgr, OSP; 

LT. HORVANT; DR. MARKER, Medical 

Dr, OSP; ROBERT PATTON, Director, 

ODOC; OKLAHOMA STATE 

PENITENTIARY; SGT. GRAHAM, 

Security Officer, OSP; OKLAHOMA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; 

MR. COPICH, Inspector, OSP, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-7060

(D.C. No. 6:15-CV-00477-JHP-SPS)

(E.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before LUCERO, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

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

this appeal. Amazon, Inc. v. Dirt Camp, Inc., 273 F.3d 1271, 1274 (10th Cir. 2001) 

(noting that “we have an independent duty to examine our own jurisdiction”). Plaintiff 

Wade Lay seeks to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion for a temporary stay of 

proceedings and for an order directing the defendants to return his personal and legal 

property so he can prepare an amended complaint as directed by the court. The district 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 18, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-7060 Document: 01019657971 Date Filed: 07/18/2016 Page: 1 
2

court denied the motion for stay and request for an order but extended the deadline for 

Lay to file his amended complaint.

Generally this court’s appellate jurisdiction is limited to review of final decisions 

of the district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The district court’s order, which extended the 

time for Lay to file an amended complaint, is not a final decision. This court may review 

an interlocutory order granting or denying injunctive relief, see § 1292(a)(1), but an order 

related to a request to compel action in the course of the litigation is not an injunction 

within the meaning of § 1292(a)(1). See Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas 

Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 279 (1988) (“An order by a federal court that relates only to the 

conduct or progress of litigation before that court ordinarily is not considered an 

injunction and therefore is not appealable under § 1292(a)(1).”); Mercer v. Magnant, 40 

F.3d 893, 896 (7th Cir. 1994) (“Only orders awarding relief on the merits, or effectively 

foreclosing some element of relief, may be appealed as injunctions.”).

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-7060 Document: 01019657971 Date Filed: 07/18/2016 Page: 2