Opinion
23-1053
03-16-2023
ROBERTO F. SANTISTEVAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DEAN WILLIAMS, Executive Director Colorado Department of Corrections; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents - Appellees.
(D.C. No. 1:22-CV-02466-LTB-GPG) (D. Colo.)
Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, HARTZ, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Petitioner-appellant Roberto F. Santistevan filed an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [ECF No. 1]. Mr. Santistevan seeks now to appeal the district court's February 16, 2023, order in which it: (1) denied Mr. Santistevan's request to stay the action pending the state court's resolution of his pending motion for postconviction relief; and (2) directed Mr. Santistevan to show cause why his habeas application should not be dismissed without prejudice as a mixed petition. [ECF No. 20].
Upon receipt of Mr. Santistevan's notice of appeal, this court issued an order to show cause, directing him to identify in writing any basis for its exercise of jurisdiction over the appeal. Mr. Santistevan filed a timely response. Upon consideration of these materials, the district court docket, and the applicable law, the court dismisses the appeal for the reasons set forth below.
Except in limited circumstances that are not present here, this court's appellate jurisdiction is limited to review of final decisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 690-92 (1974) ("The finality requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 embodies a strong congressional policy against piecemeal reviews, and against obstructing or impeding an ongoing judicial proceeding by interlocutory appeals."); Albright v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 59 F.3d 1089, 1092 (10th Cir. 1995) ("Under § 1291, we have jurisdiction only over 'final' decisions of the district court-that is, those decisions that leave nothing for the court to do but execute judgment." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court's February 16, 2023 order is a non-final interlocutory order that this court lacks jurisdiction to review unless and until the district court issues final judgment, which it has not done. See Grandbouche v. Clancy, 825 F.2d 1463, 1468 (10th Cir. 1987); see also UFCW Loc. 880-Retail Food Emps. Joint Pension Fund v. Newmont Mining Corp., 276 Fed.Appx. 747, 749 n.3 (10th Cir. 2008) ("[A] stay order by a federal court that relates only to the conduct or progress of litigation before that court ordinarily is not [immediately appealable]." (quoting Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 279 (1988))).
For the foregoing reasons, this court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Santistevan's appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.