Gary V. Reilly, Jr. v. Jack Merritt et al, No. 06-3750 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - civil rights. In an appeal from denial of a motion for injunctive relief, court lacked jurisdiction to review denials of motion to amend complaint and motion to appoint special master; district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for injunctive relief.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-3081 ___________ Gary V. Reilly, Jr. Appellant, v. Jack Merritt; Bill Hedrick, Appellees. ___________ No. 06-3750 ___________ In re: Gary V. Reilly, Jr., Petitioner. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri and * Petition for Writ of Mandamus. * * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * * * * * * * ___________ Submitted: September 7, 2007 Filed: September 24, 2007 ___________ Before MURPHY, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Missouri pretrial detainee Gary Reilly appeals the district court s1 denial of his motions for injunctive relief, to add defendants, and for appointment of a special master. Reilly also moves in this court for permission to appeal in forma pauperis (IFP), for injunctive relief, and for appointment of a special master, and has petitioned for a writ of mandamus to re-open his district court case. We grant Reilly IFP status, leaving fee collection to the district court. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484-85 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). As to the merits, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal from the district court s denial of Reilly s motion to add defendants. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a)(1), (b); Liddell v. Bd. of Educ., 693 F.2d 721, 726 (8th Cir. 1981) (appellate jurisdiction was lacking to review denial of motion to amend complaint). Likewise, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal from the district court s denial of a special master. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978) (collateral-order doctrine); cf. Grilli v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 78 F.3d 1533, 1538 (11th Cir. 1996) (order referring matter to special master is not appealable as final order under § 1291). As for the denial of Reilly s motion for injunctive relief, over which we do have jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion, clearly err, or commit any legal error in concluding that the balance of the pertinent factors favors denial of the requested injunction. See Manion v. Nagin, 255 F.3d 535, 538 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review); Dataphase Sys., Inc.v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (factors). We therefore affirm the denial of the motion for injunctive relief. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Accordingly, we grant IFP status; we affirm the denial of the motion for injunctive relief; and we deny Reilly s pending motions for injunctive relief and for 1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- appointment of a special master. We also deny Reilly s mandamus petition, because Reilly s action is still pending in the district court. ______________________________ -3-
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.
