Malich Reed v. John Does, No. 11-2888 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - civil rights. Order appealed from did not dispose of all claims, and the appeal is dismissed as premature.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2888 ___________ Malich Reed, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the John Does, 1-4, FCI Forrest City; T. C. * Eastern District of Arkansas. Outlaw, Warden, FCI - Forrest City; * Breckon, Captain, FCI - Forrest City; * [UNPUBLISHED] M Jemmott, Lt., FCI - Forrest City, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: January 6, 2012 Filed: January 26, 2012 ___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Malich Reed appeals following the district court s1 adverse grant of partial summary judgment and denial of reconsideration in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. (1971). While the parties have not raised the issue, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to entertain Reed s appeal. See Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 566 F.3d 771, 773 (8th Cir. 2009) (where it appears jurisdiction is lacking, appellate courts are obligated to consider sua sponte jurisdictional issues). Specifically, there is no final judgment because Reed s excessive-force claim is still pending below, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from final decisions); Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 523 (8th Cir. 1991) (appeal was premature when some claims remained pending), and none of the exceptions to the final-judgment rule apply, see Huggins, 566 F.3d at 775 (interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)); Krein v. Norris, 250 F.3d 1184, 1187 (8th Cir. 2001) (collateral-order doctrine); Thomas, 931 F.2d at 523 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as premature. ______________________________ -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.
