Opinion
22-6085
07-25-2022
ALLEN ALEXANDER PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHERIFF P. D. TAYLOR; DANNY HONEYCUTT, General Counsel, individually; ROBERT BENJAMIN, Lieutenant, individually; SEAN MCKEEHAN, Sergeant, individually; JASON EVERHART, Pod Rover, individually; TADASHA MORRIS, LPN., individually; MATTHEW YERBY, SERT Team Officer, individually; CHRISTOPHER HENDERSHOT, Defendants-Appellees.
(D.C. No. 5:19-CV-01137-D) (W.D. Okla.)
Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and EID, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Plaintiff Allen Alexander Parks, proceeding pro se, seeks to appeal the district court's order that granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by four of the defendants named in Mr. Parks' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. The district court order dismissed certain claims against those defendants but found that the amended complaint had stated excessive force and retaliation claims against defendants in their individual capacities, and a municipal liability claim against one defendant in his official capacity. The case remains ongoing in the district court and no final judgment has been entered.
Upon the opening of this appeal, this court directed Mr. Parks to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Mr. Parks' response asserts that he may appeal issues of law under the collateral order doctrine. Upon consideration, we dismiss this appeal for the reasons stated below.
We have jurisdiction over appeals from final decisions of the district courts under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Final decisions are those that "end the litigation on the merits and leave nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Utah v. Norton, 396 F.3d 1281, 1286 (10th Cir. 2005). "[A]ny order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). "[T]o be final, a decision must reflect the termination as to all parties and causes of action." Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212, 1221 (10th Cir. 2003).
The district court's partial dismissal order adjudicated some but not all of Mr. Parks' claims. Furthermore, the district court has not directed entry of final judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) to allow for interlocutory appellate review. Mr. Parks may not invoke the collateral order doctrine here because the district court's partial dismissal order would be reviewable upon appeal from a final judgment. See Mesa Oil, Inc. v. United States, 467 F.3d 1252, 1254-55 (10th Cir. 2006) ("effectively unreviewable of appeal from a final judgment" requirement of collateral order doctrine promotes judicial efficiency and prevents piecemeal appeals). Because the district court has not entered a final decision that adjudicates all of Mr. Parks' claims, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.