Edwards v. Hynes et al

Filing 88

ORDER denying 85 Motion for Reconsideration re 83 Order on Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 04/17/2018. (jlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION
CHARLES EDWARDS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MEDICAL DIRECTOR PAT CLARK,
)
Wheeler Correctional Facility; VIRGINIA
)
COTTLE, Dental Assistant, Wheeler
)
Correctional Facility; and DR. JASMINE
)
AHN, Dentist,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________

CV 316-019

ORDER
_________
For the reasons state in its March 20, 2018 Order, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s
Motion to Reconsider Order. (Doc. no. 85.) In the alternative, Plaintiff requests permission
to take an interlocutory appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”). However, the Court’s ruling on
Plaintiff’s sanctions motion is not interloculatorily appealable.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the United States Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction
over “all final decisions of the district courts of the United States . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Generally, “a sanctions order imposed on an attorney is not a ‘final decision’ under § 1291.”
Cunningham v. Hamilton Cty., Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 210 (1999). Thus, conversely, an order
denying a motion requesting sanctions on an attorney is not a final decision subject to
interlocutory appeal.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to appeal its March 20th Order
IFP. Should Plaintiff file an interlocutory notice of appeal, it shall not deprive this Court of
jurisdiction to rule on Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. United States v.
Riolo, 398 F. App’x 568, 571 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Hitchmon, 602 F.2d
689, 694 (5th Cir. 1979)1(en banc)) ( “[A] notice of appeal filed with respect to a nonappealable order does not have any effect on the district court’s jurisdiction.”). The Court
will address the summary judgment motion in the normal course of business.
SO ORDERED this 17th day of April, 2018, at Augusta, Georgia.

1

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh
Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions that were handed down prior to
the close of business on September 30, 1981.

2