Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01787/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01787-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathy Diamond
Appellee
Richard Mikelvie
Appellee
Eugene Myers
Appellant
Nick Roberts
Appellee

Document Text:

,, 

FILED 

United Sraca Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

EUGENE MYERS, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

KATHY DIAMOND, Detective, Salt Lake ) 

County; RICHARD MIKELVIE, Deputy County) 

Attorney; NICK ROBERTS, Deputy County ) 

Sheriff, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

FEB 23 1988 

ROBERT L HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-1787 

(D.C. No. 87-0139J) 

(D. Utah) 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

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. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his pro se in forma 

pauperis complaint by the district court. On April 30, 1987, the 

Appellate Case: 87-1787 Document: 010110027463 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 1 
-· .. 

United States magistrate made a report and recommendation to the 

district court that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed as to all 

counts against all defendants. The magistrate also recommended, 

however, that plaintiff be given ten days to amend his complaint 

to state a cognizable claim against defendant Kathy Diamond. 

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 8, 1987. The district 

court entered an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint on May 15, 

1987. The district court's order did not mention plaintiff's 

amended complaint. 

Plaintiff, apparently believing that the district court 

intended to dismiss his amended complaint as well as his original 

complaint, filed a "petition for reconsideration" on May 19, 1987. 

The district court has not yet ruled on plaintiff's motion. On 

May 26, 1987, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. 

The record does not make clear in this case whether the 

district court's order of May 15, 1987, was intended to dismiss 

plaintiff's amended complaint. If the district court intended to 

dismiss only the original complaint, as recommended by the 

magistrate, then the court's order is nonfinal and this court is 

accordingly without jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's appeal. 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. On the other hand, if the court also dismissed the 

amended complaint, then plaintiff's petition for reconsideration 

served to toll the time for filing a notice of appeal. 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). See also Skagerberg v. Oklahoma, 797 

F.2d 881, 883 (10th Cir. 1986). In either event, this appeal is 

premature, and accordingly must be dismissed. 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1787 Document: 010110027463 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 2 
The appeal is DISMISSED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1787 Document: 010110027463 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 3