*

 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and

is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

_______________________________

No. 95-31177

Summary Calendar

_______________________________

RODNEY HAMILTON,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

BILLY R. TRAVIS, Colonel, ET AL.

Defendants,

BILLY R. TRAVIS, Colonel; DOUG DURETTE; 

SHIRLEY COODY; HARVEY GRIMMER,

Defendants-Appellants.

_____________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

(92-CV-884)

_____________________________________________________

July 30, 1996

Before WISDOM, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Billy Travis, Doug Durette, ShirleyCoody, and Harvey Grimmer, the defendants-appellants,

moved the district court for summary judgment in a state prisoner’s civil rights suit. The defendants

argued that the plaintiff-appellee’s suit is barred under the doctrine of res judicata because a state

court already decided the plaintiff’s claim. The district court denied their motion. The defendants

then filed thisinterlocutory appeal ofthe district court’sruling, arguing that thisCourt hasjurisdiction

over their appeal pursuant to the collateral order doctrine.
 

1

 Marler v. Adonis Health Prods., 997 F.2d 1141, 1142 (5th Cir. 1993).

 

2

 See Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 1992, 1995-96, 128 L. Ed. 2d 842, 848-50

(1994).

 

3

 Digital Equip. Corp., 114 S. Ct. at 1996-97, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 850-51.

 

4

 See In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 694 F.2d 1041, 1043 (5th Cir. 1983); see also Digital

Equip. Corp., 114 S. Ct. at 2000, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 852; Bryant v. Sylvester, 57 F.3d 308, 312 (3d Cir. 1995),

vacated on other grounds, 116 S. Ct. 899, 133 L. Ed. 2d 834 (1996).

2

The collateral order doctrine is a narrow exception to the requirement that onlyfinal decisions

may be appealed. Under the collateral order doctrine, this Court has appellate jurisdiction over an

interlocutory appeal of a district court order provided that the appealing party can establish that the

order (1) conclusively determines the disputed issue, (2) resolves an issue that is completely separate

fromthe merits ofthe action, and (3) cannot be effectively reviewed on appealfroma finaljudgment.1

The defendants have not satisfied the third prong of this test.

In the interests of preventing piecemeal litigation and encouraging judicial economy, the

courts have greatly limited the application of the collateral order doctrine.2 This doctrine is best

suited for interlocutory appeals in which the appealing party’s right to be free from the burden of

litigation is at stake, such as when a district court rejects the defense of double jeopardy or qualified

immunity.3 In the instant case, the defendants invoke the full faith and credit clause of the

Constitution, asserting that the rejection of their appeal will irreparably harm the interests protected

by this constitutional provision. The defendants, however, have not demonstrated how the full faith

and credit of the state court decision would be injured by deferring judgment on this issue until the

district court has entered a final judgment in this case.4 Furthermore, like challenges to jurisdiction,

motions asserting res judicata “can be made in virtually every case and it would be no consolation

that a party’s meritless . . . res judicata claim was rejected on immediate appeal; the damage to the

efficient and congressionally mandated allocation of judicial responsibility would be done, and any
 

5

 Digital Equip. Corp., 114 S. Ct. at 1999, 128 L. Ed. 2d at 852.

3

improper purpose the appellant might have had in saddling its opponent with cost and delay would

be accomplished” if this appeal were allowed to proceed.5

Because the defendants have not established that the issue of res judicata is effectively

unreviewable on appeal after a final judgment, we hold that the defendants have not satisfied the

burdens of the collateral order doctrine and DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.