Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02220/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02220-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jorge Casanova
Appellant
Robert Ulibarri
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

JORGE CASANOVA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT ULIBARRI, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 15-2220

(D.C. No. 6:08-CV-00288-JAP-CG)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Pro se plaintiff Jorge Casanova appeals the district court’s order affirming the 

assigned magistrate judge’s decision not recuse and refusing to assign a new magistrate 

judge. This court entered an order to show cause as to why the appeal should not be 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed a memorandum brief in support of 

appellate jurisdiction. The defendant filed a response to the plaintiff’s memorandum 

brief. Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, the record, and the applicable case 

law, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

After this court remanded the case to the district court for additional proceedings 

on one claim against one defendant, the assigned magistrate judge scheduled several 

procedural matters. The plaintiff then filed a motion asking the magistrate judge to 

recuse. The magistrate judge declined. The plaintiff objected to the magistrate judge’s 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 8, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-2220 Document: 01019550765 Date Filed: 01/08/2016 Page: 1 
2

decision and asked the district judge to expedite assignment of a new magistrate judge. 

The district court denied relief on the plaintiff’s recusal requests. The plaintiff appealed. 

The case continues in district court. Neither a final order disposing of all claims against 

all parties nor a final judgment has been entered.

This court generally has jurisdiction to review only final decisions of district 

courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A final decision is one that disposes of all issues on the merits 

and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. Riley v. Kennedy, 553 

U.S. 406, 419 (2008). The parties agree that the underlying case has not concluded. 

Instead, the plaintiff asks this court in his memorandum brief to make an exception and 

hear his interlocutory appeal now. Jurisdiction to consider an appeal is not discretionary, 

however. D&H Marketers, Inc. v. Freedom Oil & Gas, Inc., 744 F.2d 1443, 1444 (10th 

Cir. 1984). Exceptions to the final judgment rule are extremely limited. Coopers &

Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978). We held long ago that orders denying 

motions to recuse judicial officers do not fall within the limited class of orders that are 

immediately appealable. Lopez v. Behles (In re: American Ready Mix, Inc.), 14 F.3d 

1497, 1499 (10th Cir. 1994). The plaintiff did not cite any contrary legal authority, nor do 

we know of any, that would allow us to consider this premature appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-2220 Document: 01019550765 Date Filed: 01/08/2016 Page: 2