Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01432/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01432-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robyn Cafasso
Appellee
Linda Dix
Appellee
John Doe
Appellee
Jane Does
Appellee
Does I-X
Appellee
William Edie
Appellee
Dan May
Appellee
John Newsome
Appellee
Debbi Parr
Appellee
John Ruszczyk
Appellee
Raymond Santistevan
Appellee
Sanford B. Schupper
Appellant
Jeanie Smith
Appellee
Andrea Walton
Appellee
Ronald Wilkins
Appellee
David Zook
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

SANFORD B. SCHUPPER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROBYN CAFASSO; WILLIAM EDIE; 

JEANIE SMITH; DAVID ZOOK; JOHN 

NEWSOME; DAN MAY; LINDA DIX; 

RAYMOND SANTISTEVAN; RONALD 

WILKINS; ANDREA WALTON; DEBBI 

PARR; JOHN RUSZCZYK, all in their 

individual and official capacities; JOHN 

DOE; JANE DOES; DOES I-X, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1432

(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-01853-WYD-NYW)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before GORSUCH, HOLMES, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Pro se plaintiff Sanford Schupper appeals the district court’s October 14, 2016 

order denying reconsideration of a prior order denying Mr. Schupper’s successive motion 

for appointed counsel. The order being appealed also prohibited Mr. Schupper from filing 

additional motions for appointed counsel, but granted a final extension of time to file 

objections to a recommendation of the magistrate judge issued in July 2016. Because the 

district court case has not ended, we conclude that appellate jurisdiction is lacking and 

dismiss this appeal.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 2, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1432 Document: 01019714429 Date Filed: 11/02/2016 Page: 1 
2

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

courts, except in circumstances not present here. 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). Piecemeal review of interlocutory district court orders is 

generally not allowed. Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Leavitt, 564 F.3d 1198, 1207 (10th 

Cir. 2009). This court held long ago that absent extraordinary circumstances an order 

denying a civil litigant’s motion for appointed counsel is not appropriate for interlocutory 

appeal. Cotner v. Mason, 657 F.2d 1390, 1392 (10th Cir. 1981). We find no extraordinary 

circumstances present here to justify an immediate appeal.

Likewise, the district court’s prohibition on future motions for appointed counsel 

and grant of a final extension of time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s July 6, 

2016 recommendation are decisions that are not appealable now. District courts have 

broad authority to manage their dockets and promote efficiency for the court and the 

parties. See Hartsel Springs Ranch of Colo., Inc. v. Bluegreen Corp., 296 F.3d 982, 985 

(10th Cir. 2002). Case management orders are not suitable for immediate appeal. 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 

Appellate Case: 16-1432 Document: 01019714429 Date Filed: 11/02/2016 Page: 2 
3

cases otherwise resulting from a succession of appeals from the various rulings which 

might arise during the course of litigation.” (internal quotations omitted)).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-1432 Document: 01019714429 Date Filed: 11/02/2016 Page: 3