Matthew Barnett v. Americom Bank, No. 13-3504 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - jurisdiction. Appeal from order denying default judgment was not final appealable order. Appeal of order denying preliminary injunction is moot, as final judgment has been entered.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3504 ___________________________ Matthew W. Barnett lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Americom Bank; Direct Express Payment Processing Services; Comerica, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: June 24, 2014 Filed: June 27, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Matthew Barnett appeals the district court s1 interlocutory orders denying his motions for default judgment and for preliminary injunctive relief. 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Upon careful review, we conclude that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the issues presented in this appeal. See Dieser v. Cont l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (federal courts will raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte). First, the district court s orders denying Barnett s motions for default judgment were not final appealable orders. See Bean v. Dormire, 10 F.3d 538, 539 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (district court s order denying default judgment is not final appealable order). Second, the district court s denial of preliminary injunctive relief has become moot because a final judgment has been entered against Barnett in the district court. See Brooks v. Roy, No. 12-3175, 2014 WL 715611, at *1 (8th Cir. Feb. 26, 2014) (unpublished per curiam) (interlocutory appeal from denial of preliminary injunctive relief becomes moot once final judgment is entered; appeal from order regarding injunction does not stay other proceedings before district court and does not prevent district court from deciding litigation on merits); see also Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (court properly dismisses claim as moot if it has lost its character as present, live controversy; appellate court lacks jurisdiction over cases in which, due to passage of time or change in circumstances, issues presented will no longer be live or parties will not have legally cognizable interest in outcome of litigation). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. ______________________________ -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.
