Opinion ID: 40666
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion for Declaratory Judgment

Text: We review a district court’s decision to dismiss or stay a federal declaratory judgment action under an abuse of discretion standard. Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Holmes County, 343 F.3d 383, 389 (5th Cir. 2003). Under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, a district court “may declare the rights and o ther legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (2005). The district court, however, is not compelled to exercise that jurisdiction. Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 287 (1995). In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the Declaratory Judgment Act as “an enabling Act, which confers a discretion on the courts rather than an absolute right upon the litigant.” Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Utah v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237, 241 (1952); Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 72 (1985). In this case, however, we do not reach the merits of the constitutionality of the DIMS program, nor do we determine if the dist rict court abused its discretion in denying the motion for declaratory judgment. This court is without jurisdiction to do so. Prior to reaching the merits, a court of appeals must first verify that it has jurisdiction over the appeal. Hernandez v. Tex. Dept. of Regulatory & Prot. Serv., 380 F.3d 872, 878 (5th Cir. 2004). Courts of Appeals have “jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2005). In determining appellate jurisdiction, a “final decision” of a district court generally is one that ends the litigation and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment. McLaughlin v. Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 350 (5th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). 4 The case before us is an appeal from a denial of a motion without prejudice to refile; it is not a final judgment, as the order of the district court did not adjudicate or dispose of any substantive issues. See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949) (stating that “as long as the matter remains open, unfinished or inconclusive,” the appellate court is without the power of review). Section 1292(a), however, does provide an exception to this final judgment requirement, as it allows for the appeal of certain interlocutory orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) (2005). This exception does not aid Telles because a motion for declaratory judgment is not one of the specified types of interlocutory orders subject to appeal in § 1292(a). See id. Moreover, the reason Telles’s motion for declaratory judgment was denied without prejudice is because he failed to follow the district court’s rule that moving papers be served on counsel rather than filed directly with the district court. The district court did not even reach the merits of his motion. The district court’s order denying Telles’s motion for declaratory judgment does not conclusively determine a disputed question, and it also does not qualify this issue on appeal as a collateral order exception–an alternative route to jurisdiction in the absence of a final judgment.3 See Baldridge v. SBC Commc’n, Inc., 404 F.3d 930, 931 (5th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, § 1292(b) provides an additional exception to the final judgment rule, [w]hen a district judge . . . shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law . . . that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. 3 “To come within the ‘small class’ of decisions [that fall within the collateral order exception], the order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Baldridge v. SBC Commc’n, Inc., 404 F.3d 930, 931 (5th Cir. 2005). 5 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (2005). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides yet another exception, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). These exceptions, however, are also unhelpful to Telles because the order denying his motion for declaratory judgment without prejudice has not been certified for interlocutory appeal under either § 1292(b) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b). Therefore, because Telles cannot rely on an exception to the final judgment rule, we do not reach the merits of his appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal of the denial of the declaratory judgment motion for lack of appellate jurisdiction.