Opinion
23-3191
10-20-2023
KCI AUTO AUCTION, INC., Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor - Appellee, v. ALONZO D. ANDERSON, Defendant/Judgment Debtor - Appellant.
(D.C. No. 6:19-CV-01138-EFM-GEB) (D. Kan.)
Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This matter is before us sua sponte to consider the court's jurisdiction over this appeal. See Hill v. Vanderbilt Cap. Advisors, LLC, 702 F.3d 1220, 1223 (10th Cir. 2012) (this court has "an independent duty to examine [its] own jurisdiction"). Upon careful consideration of the district court docket and the applicable law, we find that we lack jurisdiction for the reasons articulated below.
Appellant Alonzo D. Anderson initiated this appeal by filing in the district court three notices of appeal (ECF Nos. 122, 123, and 124) and two amended notices of appeal (ECF Nos. 125 and 126).
Two of the notices of appeal seek to appeal from a magistrate judge's order that has not been passed on by the district court. Such an order is not appealable. Phillips v. Beierwaltes, 466 F.3d 1217, 1221-22 (10th Cir. 2006). Additionally, the specific magistrate judge's order that Mr. Anderson seeks to appeal already was the subject of an appeal in this court. The court dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction. KCI Auto Auction, Inc. v. Anderson, No. 23-3094 (10th Cir. June 12, 2023). Mr. Anderson is not permitted two appeals of the same order. United States v. Mendes, 912 F.2d 434, 437-38 (10th Cir. 1990). To the extent this appeal seeks review of the same order that was the subject of Mr. Anderson's previous appeal, that provides a separate and independent basis for concluding that we lack jurisdiction in this matter.
The remaining notices of appeal seek to appeal the district court's interlocutory order denying several motions challenging the validity of a separate judgment entered in a separate proceeding between the parties.
This court generally has jurisdiction to hear appeals from "final decisions" of district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Interlocutory appeals are the exception, not the rule. Myers v. Oklahoma Cnty. Bd. Of Cnty. Comm'rs, 80 F.3d 421, 424 (10th Cir. 1996). A final order is one that signals the end of the litigation or disassociates the district court from the case. McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 630 F.3d 1288, 1295 (10th Cir. 2011). By contrast, "[a]n order that . . . sets the stage for further trial court proceedings is not final." Hayes Fam. Tr. v. State Farm Fire &Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 997, 1003 (10th Cir. 2017).
The district court's order denying Mr. Anderson's motions challenging the validity of a separate judgment did not signal the end of the litigation or disassociate the district court from this matter. Rather, it set the stage for further proceedings, as the district court matter remains pending. Accordingly, that order is not presently appealable.
For the reasons articulated above, we are without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED