Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02756/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02756-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Allen Smith
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2756

___________

Craig Allen Smith, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 30, 2006

Filed: June 13, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Craig Allen Smith appeals the district court’s1

 order denying his motion under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for appointed counsel in his Federal Tort Claims Act suit. We

hold that the order Smith challenges is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions)

or § 1292 (granting appellate jurisdiction over specified interlocutory orders), or under

the collateral order doctrine, see Kassuelke v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., 223 F.3d 929,

931 (8th Cir. 2000) (to qualify for immediate appeal under collateral order doctrine,

Appellate Case: 05-2756 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2006 Entry ID: 2055639
-2-

order must conclusively decide disputed question that is important and distinct from

case’s merits, and decision must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from final

judgment); cf. Marler v. Adonis Health Prods., 997 F.2d 1141, 1142-43 (5th Cir.

1993) (declining to extend collateral order doctrine to immediate appeals of orders

denying appointed counsel in products liability cases; in support stating, inter alia, that

appellate court can effectively remedy effects of erroneous denial of counsel by

vacating judgment and remanding for new trial with appointed counsel).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2756 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2006 Entry ID: 2055639