Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03295/USCOURTS-ca10-16-03295-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyler Scott Allison
Appellant
Kendra Baker
Appellee
John Bosch
Appellee
Kathy Boyd
Appellee
Sam Brownback
Appellee
Randy Debenham
Appellee
Daniel Dietrich
Appellee
Does 1-10
Appellee
Rhonda Eisenbarger
Appellee
Bethany Fields
Appellee
Theresa Freed
Appellee
Phyllis Gilmore
Appellee
Lora Ingles
Appellee
Deja Jackson
Appellee
Miranda Johnson
Appellee
KVC
Appellee
Pathways Family Services, LLC
Appellee
Pawnee Mental Health Services
Appellee
Kaylee Possen
Appellee
Laura Price
Appellee
Riley County
Appellee
Riley County Police Department
Appellee
Blake Robinson
Appellee
Amelia Schwab
Appellant
Raymond Schwab
Appellant
St. Francis
Appellee
State of Kansas
Appellee
State of Kansas, Department for Children and Families
Appellee
Sunflower Casa Project
Appellee
Carla Swartz
Appellee
Andrew Vinduska
Appellee
Barry Wilkerson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

RAYMOND SCHWAB; AMELIA 

SCHWAB; TYLER SCOTT ALLISON, 

AKA Tyler Allison, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

STATE OF KANSAS; STATE OF 

KANSAS, DEPARTMENT FOR 

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES; PHYLLIS 

GILMORE, in her capacity as Secretary of 

the Kansas Department for Children and 

Families; SAM BROWNBACK, in his 

capacity as Governor of the State of 

Kansas; JOHN BOSCH, an individual; 

DOES 1-10; DANIEL DIETRICH; 

BARRY WILKERSON; RHONDA 

EISENBARGER; RILEY COUNTY 

POLICE DEPARTMENT; PATHWAYS 

FAMILY SERVICES, LLC; DEJA 

JACKSON; RILEY COUNTY; BLAKE 

ROBINSON; ANDREW VINDUSKA; 

MIRANDA JOHNSON; LORA INGLES; 

KVC, a private business entity; ST. 

FRANCIS, a private business entity; 

KATHY BOYD; KENDRA BAKER, In 

her official and individual capacity; 

THERESA FREED, In her official and 

individual capacity; RANDY 

DEBENHAM, in his official and individual 

capacity; BETHANY FIELDS, in her 

official and individual capacity; CARLA 

SWARTZ, in her personal and professional 

capacity; PAWNEE MENTAL HEALTH 

SERVICES; SUNFLOWER CASA 

PROJECT, 501(c)(3) non profit entity; 

KAYLEE POSSEN, in her individual and 

No. 16-3295

(D.C. No. 5:16-CV-04033-DDC-KGS)

(D. Kan.)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 14, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-3295 Document: 01019705201 Date Filed: 10/14/2016 Page: 1 
2

professional capacity; LAURA PRICE, in 

her individual and professional capacity, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before the court on four separate motions to dismiss, Appellants’ 

motion to accept late filing of the response to the motion to dismiss, Appellants’ 

response, Appellants’ motion for emergency stay of protection order, and Appellants’ 

request for mandamus relief. 

Appellants’ motion to accept late filing of the response is granted. 

Appellants, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal of the magistrate judge’s 

September 22, 2016 order granting Appellees’ motion for a protective order, among other 

things, and the magistrate judge’s September 22, 2016 protective order. 

Orders entered by a magistrate judge are generally not immediately appealable. 

See Phillips v. Beierwaltes, 466 F.3d 1217, 1222 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Magistrates may 

issue orders as to non-dispositive pretrial matters, and district courts review such orders 

under a clearly erroneous or contrary to law standard of review.”) (citation omitted) 

(emphasis added).

Additionally, except in certain circumstances that are not present here, the court’s 

appellate jurisdiction is limited to review of final judgments. U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 

683, 690-92 (1974). A decision is “not final, ordinarily, unless it ends the litigation on the 

Appellate Case: 16-3295 Document: 01019705201 Date Filed: 10/14/2016 Page: 2 
3

merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Cunningham v. 

Hamilton County, Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 204 (1999) (internal quotations omitted). 

“Under the collateral-order doctrine, we can hear immediate appeals of decisions 

before final judgment that ‘[1] finally determine claims of right [2] separable from, and 

collateral to, rights asserted in the action, [and] [3] too important to be denied review and 

too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until 

the whole case is adjudicated.’” United States v. Angilau, 717 F.3d 781, 785 (10th Cir. 

2013) (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949) 

(alterations in original)). The orders that are the subjects of this appeal do not qualify as 

exceptions to the final judgment rule. “This circuit has repeatedly held that discovery 

orders are not appealable under the Cohen doctrine.” Boughton v. Cotter Corp., 10 F.3d 

746, 749 (10th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the motions to dismiss are granted. 

Appellants’ request for mandamus relief is denied. 

Appellants’ motion for emergency stay is denied as moot.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-3295 Document: 01019705201 Date Filed: 10/14/2016 Page: 3