Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01281/USCOURTS-ca10-07-01281-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jim Brown
Appellee
Dennis Burbank
Appellee
James Arlen Childs
Appellant
Karen Cooper
Appellee
Anthony A. DeCesaro
Appellee
Jason Else
Appellee
Randy Foshee
Appellee
Sheryl Hebert
Appellee
J. Holcomb
Appellee
T. Keeler
Appellee
Phil Marmalejo
Appellee
Donald McCall
Appellee
Michael Mellano
Appellee
K. Meyer
Appellee
Donna Murphy
Appellee
Joe Ortiz
Appellee
Steve Owens
Appellee
Barry Pardus
Appellee
L.A. Ramirez
Appellee
William Richter
Appellee
Julie Russell
Appellee
Sgt. Simmons
Appellee
T. Twilleger
Appellee
M. Winden
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JAMES ARLEN CHILDS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

JOE ORTIZ; BARRY PARDUS;

DENNIS BURBANK; RANDY

FOSHEE; WILLIAM RICHTER; T.

KEELER; J. HOLCOMB; DONNA

MURPHY; STEVE OWENS;

DONALD MCCALL; JIM BROWN;

SGT. SIMMONS; K. MEYER; PHIL

MARMALEJO; JULIE RUSSELL;

JASON ELSE; ANTHONY A.

DECESARO; KAREN COOPER;

SHERYL HEBERT; T. TWILLEGER;

MICHAEL MELLANO; L.A.

RAMIREZ; M. WINDEN, 

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 07-1281

 (D.C. Case No. 06-CV-741-ZLW)

ORDER

Filed September 28, 2007

Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

After remand, the district court in a June 7, 2007 Order reinstated Plaintiff’s

civil rights action and denied his motion for fees and costs as premature. Plaintiff

appeals the portion of the order denying fees and costs.

“Federal appellate jurisdiction generally depends on the existence of a

Appellate Case: 07-1281 Document: 010141330 Date Filed: 09/28/2007 Page: 1 
2

decision by the District Court that ‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves

nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’ ” Federal Deposit Insurance

Corp. v. McGlamery, 74 F.3d 218, 221 (10th Cir. 1996) (quoting Coopers &

Lybrand v. Liversay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 (1978)). In Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S.

345,___, 126 S.Ct. 952 (2006), the Supreme Court stressed that very few types of

interlocutory orders can qualify as immediately appealable collateral orders. The

requirements are strict and “unless they are kept so, the underlying doctrine will

overpower the substantial finality interests [28 U.S.C.] § 1291 is meant to further.”

Id. 126 S.Ct. at 957.

The June 7, 2007 Order appealed by Plaintiff does not constitute a final or

immediately appealable decision under § 1291 or under any recognized exception

to the final judgment rule. The order is appealable upon entry of final judgment by

the district court.

This appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

The entry of this order does not affect the issues that can be raised in

Appeal No. 07-1317.

Entered for the Court,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk

Kathleen T. Clifford

Attorney - Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 07-1281 Document: 010141330 Date Filed: 09/28/2007 Page: 2 
3

Appellate Case: 07-1281 Document: 010141330 Date Filed: 09/28/2007 Page: 3