Opinion
24-1030
03-22-2024
ALLISON T. WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. RICHARD EBERHARTER; WILLIAM BARTZ, Defendants - Appellees.
(D.C. No. 1:23-CV-01361-SBP) (D. Colo.)
Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and McHUGH, 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").
Appellant Allison Wright seeks to appeal from an interlocutory order denying her motion seeking the release of her son's personal property, as well as bodycam footage and autopsy photos. In addition to denying her motion, the order directed Ms. Wright to file an amended complaint. Ms. Wright filed an amended complaint in response and that amended complaint remains pending in the district court.
We entered an order directing Ms. Wright to explain the basis for this court's jurisdiction over this appeal. We have before us Ms. Wright's response to that order. Upon consideration of Ms. Wright's response to our order, the district court docket, and the applicable law, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal for the following reasons.
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). "An 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 order denying Ms. Wright's motion seeking the release of her son's personal property, as well as bodycam footage and autopsy photos, did not end this litigation on the merits. Indeed, Ms. Wright's amended complaint-filed in response to the order being appealed-remains pending in the district court. In short, the order Ms. Wright seeks to appeal is one that "sets the stage for further trial court proceedings." Hayes Fam. Tr., 845 F.3d at 1003. It is neither a final order nor does it fit within any of the recognized exceptions to the finality doctrine. Accordingly, it is not presently appealable, and we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED