Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03294/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03294-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Judith E. Banks
Appellee
Kansas State University
Appellee
Colleen M. Nutter
Appellant
Lou Ann Smith
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

COLLEEN M. NUTTER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

~' IL 'ri' D 

Uni~ St.a~ w·;: oi Appeals 

Tenth circuit 

FEB 2 0 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Cleric 

v. ) 

) 

) 

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY, and ) 

its representatives, ) 

No. 90-3294 

) 

Defendant-Appellee, ) 

) 

LOU ANN SMITH, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee, ) 

) 

JUDITH E. BANKS ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-1436) 

(D. Kans.) 

ORDER AHO JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3294 Document: 010110103810 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 1 
The underlying claim is a civil rights action under 42 u.s.c. 

S 2000e-5. Apparently, appellant alleges that she was 

discriminated against by Kansas State University, its agents, and 

two other named individuals. The relief she seeks is a degree, 

financial aid, credit restored, and monetary restitution. The 

lower court allowed appellant to proceed in forma pauperis, but 

denied her application for an appointment of counsel. See Nutter 

v. Kansas State University, et al, Minute Order, No. 90-1436 (Oct. 

2, 1990). It is this denial that appellant appeals. 

In this circuit the law is clear that a denial of appointment 

of counsel by the district court is not considered a final 

judgment, and therefore we must dismiss such an appeal. The 

reasoning of this circuit, which applies in this case, is 

explained at length in Cotner v. Mason, 657 F.2d 1390 (1981): 

Generally, interlocutory orders of district courts 

are not permitted appellate review prior to the entry of 

final judgment .... Appellant's underlying cause of action is not 

complicated, and we are aware of no circumstances which 

would preclude this prose litigant from presenting 

h[er] claim to the district court and, if need be, to 

this court after the entry of final judgment. At that 

point this court could fully review the district court's 

denial of the motion for appointment of counsel to 

determine whether the district court abused its 

discretion. 

Denying immediate review of the order denying 

appointment of counsel will not cause crucial collateral 

claims to be lost and potentially irreparable injuries 

to be suffered .... Because these asserted rights can be 

fully remedied by a post-judgment reversal and a new 

trial, denying immediate appeal does not cause 

irreparable injuries or destroy the legal and practical 

value of these rights. Id. at 1391-1392 (quotation marks 

omitted). 

We realize that there is a split among the circuits on 

whether a denial of a request for appointment of counsel under 28 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3294 Document: 010110103810 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 2 
• U.S.C. S 1915(d) or 42 u.s.c. S 2000e-5(f)(l) is immediately 

appealable. See id. at 1392 (discussing various positions of 

other circuits); see generally Annotation, Appealability of 

Federal Court Order Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel for 

Indigent Party, 67 A.L.R. Fed. 925 (1984 & Supp. 1990). However, 

[t]his court has consistently held that, absent extraordinary 

circumstances, orders denying appointment of counsel in civil 

cases are not immediately appealable as of right." Id. Because no 

such circumstances have been demonstrated by appellant in this 

case, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court, 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3294 Document: 010110103810 Date Filed: 02/20/1991 Page: 3