Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04074/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04074-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Burton
Appellee
FNU Flatt
Appellee
FNU Gates
Not Party
Jon Greiner
Appellee
FNU Johnson
Appellee
Kevin McCleod
Appellee
FNU Murray
Appellee
Timothy Scott
Appellee
Terry L. Thompson
Appellee
David Webb
Appellant
FNU West
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 16, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

DAVID WEBB, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TERRY L. THOMPSON, Sheriff for 

Weber County; KEVIN McCLEOD, 

Undersheriff for Weber County Sheriff's 

Office; KEVIN BURTON, Captain and 

Corrections Division Chief Deputy for 

Weber County Correctional Facility; 

TIMOTHY SCOTT, Police Officer for 

Ogden City Police Department; FNU 

MURRAY, Police Officer at Ogden City 

Police Department; JON GREINER, Chief 

of Police at Ogden City Police Dept.; FNU 

WEST, Sgt. at Weber County Correctional 

Facility; FNU JOHNSON, Sgt. at Weber 

County Correctional Facility; FNU 

FLATT, Correctional Officer at Weber 

County Correctional Facility, 

 Defendants - Appellees,

and

FNU GATES, 

 Defendant.

No. 16-4074

(D.C. No. 1:11-CV-00128-DN-EJF)

(D. Utah)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Appellate Case: 16-4074 Document: 01019620639 Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 1 
2

Pro se plaintiff David Webb appeals the district court’s April 25, 2016 docket text 

order denying Mr. Webb’s March 24, 2016 motion to appoint counsel. After the appeal 

was opened, this court challenged the appellant to demonstrate appellate jurisdiction. 

After considering his response, we conclude that jurisdiction is lacking and dismiss the 

appeal.

This 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 has held 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).

Mr. Webb is not appealing a final order. His civil rights case is still pending in the 

district court, and final judgment has not been entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Moreover, 

this court’s precedent forecloses his premature appeal. In Cotner, this court considered 

and rejected arguments similar to those advanced by the appellant in response to our 

order to show cause. 657 F.2d at 1391-92. Just as in Cotner, we see “no persuasive reason 

to depart in this case from the strong policy against ‘piecemeal appellate disposition of 

Appellate Case: 16-4074 Document: 01019620639 Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 2 
3

what is, in practical consequence, but a single controversy.’” Id. at 1392 (citing Eisen v. 

Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 170 (1974)).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-4074 Document: 01019620639 Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 3