Bryan Stanley v. Ouachita Correctional Center, et al

Filing

Bryan Stanley v. Ouachita Correctional Center, et al

Doc. 0

Case: 09-31034

Document: 00511214208

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/25/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-31034 S u m m a r y Calendar August 25, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

B R Y A N KEITH STANLEY, also known as Tim Fowler, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t v. O U A C H I T A CORRECTIONAL CENTER; ROYCE TONEY; MEDICAL STAFF O F OUACHITA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; JOHN DOE; JANE DOE; S H E R I F F 'S DEPARTMENT OUACHITA PARISH; POLICE JURY OF O U A C H I T A PARISH, Financial Commissioner; LOUISIANA STATE U N IV E R S I T Y MEDICAL CENTER; CONWAY HOSPITAL; UNKNOWN D E P U T Y , Maintenance for Ouachita Correctional Center; RICKY MARTIN, D e fe n d a n t s -A p p e lle e s

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:09-CV-863

B e fo r e REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* B r y a n Keith Stanley, former Louisiana prisoner # 2602323, proceeding pro s e and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights complaint against various d e fe n d a n t s alleging that he was injured as a result of unsafe conditions at the

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-31034

Document: 00511214208 Page: 2 No. 09-31034

Date Filed: 08/25/2010

O u a c h it a Correctional Center, that he was denied adequate medical care, and t h a t the defendants failed to protect him from assaults perpetrated by inmates. On September 14, 2009, the district court issued a ruling and judgment d is m is s in g Stanley's claims related to unsafe prison conditions and the d e fe n d a n t s ' failure to protect him from inmate violence. The district court r e m a n d e d Stanley's inadequate medical care claim to the magistrate judge for fu r t h e r proceedings. On September 19, 2009, the magistrate judge issued a m e m o r a n d u m ordering that Stanley amend his complaint and provide specific fa c t u a l allegations supporting his remaining claim. On October 21, 2009,

S t a n le y filed a notice of appeal from the district court's September 14, 2009, ju d g m e n t and the magistrate judge's September 21, 2009, memorandum order. The district court dismissed Stanley's denial of adequate medical care claim and e n te r e d a final judgment on January 12, 2010. We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction sua sponte, if necessary. Clark v. Johnson, 278 F.3d 459, 460 (5th Cir. 2002), abrogation on other grounds r e c o g n iz e d by Rosales v. Quarterman, 565 F.3d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 2009). The d is t r ic t court's September 14, 2009 judgment did not dispose of Stanley's denial o f adequate medical care claim. Thus, neither it nor the magistrate judge's S e p t e m b e r 21, 2009 memorandum order was a final judgment for purposes of 28 U .S .C . § 1291. See McLaughlin v. Mississippi Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 350 (5th C ir . 2004). The appeal does not fit within any of the categories of appealable in t e r lo c u t o r y orders listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1292, the district court did not certify t h e judgment for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules o f Civil Procedure, and neither the district court's judgment nor the magistrate ju d g e 's memorandum order resolved issues separate from the merits that would b e unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See § 1292; Cohen v.

B e n e fic ia l Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). Finally, although a p r e m a tu r e notice of appeal may be deemed timely filed under Rule 4(a)(2) of the F e d e r a l Rules of Appellate Procedure, Stanley's appeal is not saved by that rule 2

Case: 09-31034

Document: 00511214208 Page: 3 No. 09-31034

Date Filed: 08/25/2010

b e c a u s e the district court had not finally disposed of all of the claims in the ju d g m e n t from which Stanley appealed. See FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors M o r tg a g e Co., 498 U.S. 269, 276 (1991); United States v. Cooper, 135 F.3d 960, 9 6 1 -6 3 (5th Cir. 1998). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider the instant a p p e a l. A c c o r d in g ly , Stanley's appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

3