United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-2564

___________ Jeffrey Gorman, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western v. * District of Missouri. * Floyd Bartch, Chief, Kansas City * Missouri, Police Department; Steven * Bishop, Former Chief, Kansas City, * Missouri, Police Department; and * Emanuel Cleaver II, John Dillingham, * Jack Headley, Jacqueline L. Paul, * Bailus Tate, Dona Boley, Neil Becker, * Dr. Stacey Daniels, and James F. * Ralls, Jr., * * Appellees. * *

_______________________________ * * * United States of America, * * Amicus Curiae. *

___________ Submitted: January 15, 1997 Filed: September 4, 1997

___________-2-

Before LOKEN, BRIGHT, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. In 1992, the Kansas City, Missouri, police arrested Jeffrey Gorman fo r trespassing in a bar. Mr. Gorman is a paraplegic who is wheelchair-bound. A police va n arrived to transport Mr. Gorman, and two officers lifted him from his wheelchair onto a bench inside the van. One of the officers used Mr. Gorman's belt to tie him to a mesh panel beh ind the bench. During the trip to the police station, Mr. Gorman fell from the bench and was injured. He sued the police chief, the officer who tied him to the mesh panel, and current and former members of the Board o f Police Commissioners. Mr. Gorman alleged that by transpor ting him in a vehicle that was not suitable for persons with mobilit y impairments, the defendants discriminated against him in vi olation of the Rehabilitation Ac t of 1973, see 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-797b, especially 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), and th e Amer icans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), see 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 , especially 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
In a se ries of four orders, the district court granted summary judgment to all of the defendants in their official and individual capacities. Mr. Gorman appeals. W e dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
I. In two orders filed on

March 26, 1996, and one order filed on March 29, 1996, the district court granted summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity to , respe ctively, the person who was the police chief at the relevant time, see Gorman v. Bi shop , 919 F. Supp. 326, 327, 332 (W.D. Mo. 1996), the officer who tie d Mr. Gorman to the mesh panel (unpublished opinion), and the current and former-3-

members of the Board o f Police Commissioners (unpublished opinion). The grants of summary judgment to all of those defendants were in their individual capacity. In an order filed on May 13, 1996, the district court substituted the c urrent police chief in his official capacity in the place of the person who was the police chief at the relevant time in his official capacity, see Gorman v. Bartch , 925 F. Supp. 653, 653 n.1 (W.D. Mo. 1996), and then granted summary j udgment to all of the defendants in their official capacity, see id. at 654, 658. The basis for summary judgment was the district court's holding that the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA do not apply to th e circumstances of Mr. Gorman's transport after arrest. See id. at 656-58.
Th e district court acknowledged that each of the four orders resolved different claims. S ee id. at 655 n.3. The district court did not, however, execute a fina l "ju dgment

... set forth on a separate document," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, tha t "adjudicat[ed] all the claims and the rights a nd liabilities of all the parties," see Fed. R. Civ. 54(b), for the whole case. In the absence of such a judgment, we have n o jurisdiction. See Powell v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. , 90 F.3d 283, 284 (8th Cir. 1996); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
II. We therefore dismiss the appeal without prejudice. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.