Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-07050/USCOURTS-ca10-15-07050-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ken Adair
Appellee
City of Muskogee
Appellee
Ryan Ferguson
Appellee
Timothy King
Appellee
Orvil Loge
Appellee
Muskogee County
Appellee
Muskogee County Detention Center
Appellee
Mike Norman
Appellee
Roger Parnam
Appellee
Harold Pedigo
Appellee
Elias Quintana
Appellant
Leif Wright
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

ELIAS QUINTANA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JUDGE KEN ADAIR, individually and in 

his official capacity as District Judge; 

ORVIL LOGE, individually and in his 

official capacity as District Attorney; 

TIMOTHY KING, individually and in his 

official capacity as Assistant District 

Attorney; RYAN FERGUSON, 

individually and in his official capacity as 

Assistant District Attorney; CITY OF 

MUSKOGEE; MUSKOGEE COUNTY 

DETENTION CENTER; LEIF WRIGHT, 

individually and d/b/a Muskogee 

Mugshots; HAROLD PEDIGO, 

individually; ROGER PARNAM, 

individually; JUDGE MIKE NORMAN, 

individually and in his official capacity as 

District Judge; MUSKOGEE COUNTY, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-7050

(D.C. No. 6:15-CV-00063-FHS)

(E.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, GORSUCH, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Pro se plaintiff Elias Quintana appeals the district court’s minute orders entered 

July 6 and 7, 2015, denying his motions to reconsider prior orders dismissing two 

defendants. After entry of the orders being appealed, part of the plaintiff’s case remained 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 18, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-7050 Document: 01019492922 Date Filed: 09/18/2015 Page: 1 
2

to be decided. Neither a final order disposing of all claims against all parties nor a Rule 

58 final judgment has been entered. The case actively continues in the district court. 

After the appeal was opened, this court entered an order to show cause as to why 

the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed a 

response combined with a motion to permit interlocutory appeal. The court invited the 

appellees to respond to the appellant’s motion. One set of appellees filed a response. 

After carefully considering the responses and the applicable law, we now dismiss this 

appeal. 

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

courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A final decision is one that fully terminates all matters as to all 

parties and causes of action and leaves nothing for the district court to do but execute the 

judgment. Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 712 (1996); Harolds Stores, 

Inc. v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 82 F.3d 1533, 1541 (10th Cir. 1996). The district 

court’s minute orders are not final decisions. 

In response to the court’s order to show cause, the plaintiff effectively conceded 

that the orders he is appealing are not final, but contended that his appeal deserves to be 

heard now. But the arguments offered in support of interlocutory appeal are not unique, 

nor are they persuasive. This court lacks authority to certify a district court order pursuant 

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), as the civil procedural rules apply only to 

district courts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. And we see nothing in the record to indicate the 

district court has certified its orders as partial final judgments under Rule 54(b). See

Atiya v. Salt Lake County, 988 F.2d 1013, 1016 (10th Cir. 1993) (“In the absence of 

Appellate Case: 15-7050 Document: 01019492922 Date Filed: 09/18/2015 Page: 2 
3

[Rule 54(b) certification], any order, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than 

all of the claims or the liabilities of all of the parties, is not a final appealable order.”). 

Additionally, we find no support for granting an exception to the final judgment 

rule by applying the collateral order doctrine. The orders addressing dismissal of two 

defendants do not implicate rights so important as to require separate appellate review 

from the case as a whole, nor is immediate appeal necessary to preserve the plaintiff’s 

ability to obtain meaningful review by this court. See Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan 

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). As we held long ago, interlocutory orders such as those 

at issue here are not immediately appealable. Arthur Anderson & Co. v. Finesilver, 546 

F.2d 338, 342 (10th Cir. 1976) (“Every interlocutory order involves, to some degree, a 

potential loss or harm. That risk, however, must be balanced against the need for efficient 

federal judicial administration, the need for the appellate courts to be free from the 

harassment of fragmentary and piecemeal review of cases otherwise resulting from a 

succession of appeals from the various rulings which might arise during the course of 

litigation.” (internal quotations omitted)). 

Since no final decision has been entered and no exception to the final judgment 

rule applies, we conclude that this court is without jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff’s 

appeal of the district court’s July 6 and 7, 2015 minute orders at this time. All pending 

motions are denied.

Appellate Case: 15-7050 Document: 01019492922 Date Filed: 09/18/2015 Page: 3 
4

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-7050 Document: 01019492922 Date Filed: 09/18/2015 Page: 4