From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cason v. Dist. of Columbia

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jun 15, 2007
No. 06-7203 (D.C. Cir. Jun. 15, 2007)

Summary

In Cason v. District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections, No. 06-7203, 2007 WL 2892694, at *1 (D.C. Cir. June 15, 2007), the Court of Appeals concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the District Court's order vacating the entry of default judgment and the order denying reconsideration "because they are neither final nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders," since "[a]ppellant may challenge these orders upon entry of the final judgment."

Summary of this case from Gilmore v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority

Opinion

No. 06-7203.

Filed On: June 15, 2007.

BEFORE: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Sentelle and Henderson, Circuit Judges


ORDER


Upon consideration of the trust account report and the consent to collection of fees, it is

ORDERED that, pursuant to appellant's consent to collection of fees, appellant's custodian is directed to pay on appellant's behalf the initial partial filing fee of $7.84, to be withheld from appellant's trust fund account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The payment must be by check or money order made payable to the Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Appellant's custodian also is directed to collect and pay from appellant's trust account monthly installments of 20 per cent of the previous month's income credited to appellant's account, until the full $455 docketing fee has been paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Such payments must be made each month the amount in the account exceeds $10 and must be designated as made in payment of the filing fee for Case No. 06-7203, an appeal from Civil Action No. 06cv446. A copy of this order must accompany each remittance. In the event appellant is transferred to another institution, the balance due must be collected and paid to the Clerk by the custodian at appellant's next institution. Appellant's custodian must notify the Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in the event appellant is released from custody.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to appellant, by whatever means necessary to ensure receipt, and to the Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Clerk is further directed to send to appellant's custodian a copy of this order and appellant's consent to collection of fees.

Upon consideration of the motion for appointment of counsel, the motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and the response and supplemental responses thereto, appellant's April 11, 2007 notice (styled as "renewed order to show cause"), the "renewed motion for default for all defendants," and the motion to supplement the record, it is

ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. With the exception of defendants appealing or defending in criminal cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to dismiss be granted. This court does not have jurisdiction to review the portion of the district court's October 3, 2006 order vacating the entry of default judgment against Aramark Food Service Corp. or the district court's October 19, 2006 order denying reconsideration because they are neither final nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 473 F.3d 345, 348-49 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also Parks v. Collins, 761 F.2d 1101, 1104 (5th Cir. 1985); Crowe v. Ragnar Benson, Inc., 307 F.2d 73, 75 (3rd Cir. 1962). Appellant may challenge these orders upon entry of the final judgment. See Edwin Raphael Co. v. Maharam Fabrics Corp., 283 F.2d 310, 311 (7th Cir. 1960). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the "renewed motion for default for all defendants" and the motion to supplement the record be dismissed as moot.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.


Summaries of

Cason v. Dist. of Columbia

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jun 15, 2007
No. 06-7203 (D.C. Cir. Jun. 15, 2007)

In Cason v. District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections, No. 06-7203, 2007 WL 2892694, at *1 (D.C. Cir. June 15, 2007), the Court of Appeals concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the District Court's order vacating the entry of default judgment and the order denying reconsideration "because they are neither final nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders," since "[a]ppellant may challenge these orders upon entry of the final judgment."

Summary of this case from Gilmore v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority

dismissing appeal from district court order vacating entry of default judgment against defendant because that order was neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order

Summary of this case from Muhammad v. Dale
Case details for

Cason v. Dist. of Columbia

Case Details

Full title:Phillip Thomas Cason, Appellant v. District of Columbia Department of…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Jun 15, 2007

Citations

No. 06-7203 (D.C. Cir. Jun. 15, 2007)

Citing Cases

Muhammad v. Dale

First of all, it is an interlocutory appeal over which appellate jurisdiction is lacking. See Scinto v.…

Gilmore v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority

Plaintiffs are wrong. This Circuit has made clear that the collateral order doctrine does not apply to an…