Eugene Jones-El v. Dave Dormire, et al, No. 10-2320 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - prisoner civil rights. Court lacks jurisdiction over the district court's order which dismissed one of plaintiff's claims; court had jurisdiction to review denial of plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, and that order is affirmed; however, the district court is requested to give a more detailed explanation of any future orders denying appointment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2320 ___________ Eugene Kenneth Jones-El, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Dave Dormire; Bill Galloway; Stewart * Epps; David Webster; R. Marian * Ortbals; Jay Cassady; John James; * Nita Branson-Henderson; Mitchell * Appeal from the United States Finley; Christine Linsey; Richard * District Court for the Western Martin; Michael Regan; Mike Kemna; * District of Missouri. Edward L. Ruppel; Sandra Webb; * Debra Reed; Randy Mobley; Norman * [UNPUBLISHED] Graham; Nathan Rasher; Rodney * Kueffer; Charles Turner; Andria * Galbreath; Dave Courm; George * Lombardi; Scott Kintner; James Glass; * Robyn Combs; Kevin Thompson; * Robert Alderman; Cindy Wansing; * Jerline Deardeuff, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: September 2, 2010 Filed: September 3, 2010 ___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM Eugene Jones-El appeals from the district court s1 interlocutory orders (1) dismissing one claim prior to service of process for failure to state a claim; and (2) denying without prejudice Jones-El s motion for appointment of counsel. The order dismissing one claim does not constitute a final, appealable order, however, because another claim remains pending, the court did not certify that there was no just reason for delay, and the order does not fall within the collateral order exception to the final-judgment rule. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Digital Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 867-68 (1994) (collateral-order doctrine). Accordingly we lack jurisdiction over that portion of the appeal. We have jurisdiction to review the order denying appointment of counsel, see Slaughter v. City of Maplewood, 731 F.2d 587, 588 (8th Cir. 1984), and finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). However, we direct the district court to give a more detailed explanation of its reasoning in any future orders denying appointment of counsel. See Nelson v. Shuffman, 476 F.3d 635, 636 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (affirming order denying appointment of counsel, but directing court to state reasoning in any future orders).2 ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 2 We grant appellant s motion for IFP status. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
