Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-00602/USCOURTS-ca10-15-00602-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Burton
Respondent
Andrew Flatt
Respondent
FNU Gates
Respondent
Jon Greiner
Respondent
Alton Johnson
Respondent
Kevin McCleod
Respondent
FNU Murray
Respondent
Timothy Scott
Respondent
Terry L. Thompson
Respondent
David Webb
Petitioner
Robert West
Respondent

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

DAVID WEBB, 

 Petitioner,

v.

TIMOTHY SCOTT, Police Officer for 

Ogden City Police Department; FNU 

MURRAY; TERRY L. THOMPSON, 

Sheriff for Weber County; KEVIN 

MCCLEOD, Undersheriff for Weber 

County Sheriff's Office; KEVIN 

BURTON, Captain and Corrections 

Division Chief Deputy for Weber County 

Correctional Facility; ROBERT WEST, 

Sgt. at Weber County Correctional Facility; 

ALTON JOHNSON, Sgt. at Weber County 

Correctional Facility; FNU GATES, 

Correctional Officer at Weber County 

Correctional Facility; ANDREW FLATT, 

Correctional Officer at Weber County 

Correctional Facility; JON GREINER, 

Chief of Police at Ogden City Police 

Department, 

 Respondents.

No. 15-602

(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-00128-DB-DBP)

(D. Utah)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, LUCERO, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter comes on for consideration of the Petition for Permission to Appeal 

filed by David Webb. Upon consideration thereof, the petition is denied.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 21, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-602 Document: 01019419065 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 1 
2

Mr. Webb seeks permission from this court to appeal an order of the district court 

granting summary judgment to some of the defendants, citing to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), § 

1292(e), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as grounds for 

jurisdiction. The caption of the petition also cites to Fed. R. App. P. 5. His argues in his 

petition that there is jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine as set forth in Cohen 

v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., Bank, 337 U.S. 541 (1949). None of these provide 

grounds for this court to hear this matter.

Section 1292(b) requires certification by the district court that the order at issue 

“involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for 

difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially 

advance the ultimate termination of the litigation . . . .” Here, the district court did not so 

certify the order nor did the plaintiff seek certification. The other jurisdictional statute 

cited by plaintiff, Section 1292(e), merely allows the Supreme Court to to prescribe rules 

to provide for interlocutory appeals not otherwise provided for in other subsections of § 

1292. 

Nor does As for Fed. R. App. P. 5 provide jurisdiction. Rule 5 states that:

(a)(1) To request permission to appeal when an appeal is within the 

court of appeals’ discretion, a party must file a petition for 

permission to appeal. The petition must be filed with the circuit 

clerk with proof of service on all other parties to the district-court 

action.

(2) The petition must be filed within the time specified by the statute 

or rule authorizing the appeal, or, if no such time is specified, within 

the time provided by Rule 4(a) for filing a notice of appeal.

(Emphasis added.)

Appellate Case: 15-602 Document: 01019419065 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 2 
3

Thus, Rule 5 merely prescribes the procedure for taking an interlocutory appeal 

which is authorized by statute or other rule. Accordingly, reliance on Rule 5 is misplaced.

Mr. Webb argues that there is jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. In 

order to come within the collateral order doctrine, the order being appealed must meet 

three conditions. The order must “(1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) 

resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be 

effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 

345, 349 (2006) (internal quotations omitted). “[W]hen determining whether an order is 

‘effectively unreviewable’ absent interlocutory review, ‘it is not mere avoidance of a 

trial, but avoidance of a trial that would imperil a substantial public interest, that 

counts.’” Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC v. Campus Village Apartments, 

LLC, 703 F.3d 1147, 1150 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. at 353). 

The order being appealed here does not meet that standard.

Accordingly, the petition for permission is DENIED. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Ellen Rich Reiter

 Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 15-602 Document: 01019419065 Date Filed: 04/21/2015 Page: 3