RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206
File Name: 11a0103p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________
X
-
MICHAEL GRESHAM,
-
Movant-Appellant,
-
-
No. 10-2467
YVETTE JONES, Personal Representative of
,
>
-
the Estate of Raymond E. Jones, Deceased
Plaintiff-Appellee, -
Estate of,
-
-
-
-
v.
-
-
CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., et
-
al.,
Defendants-Appellees. N
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 09-00392—Paul Lewis Maloney, Chief District Judge.
Decided and Filed: April 25, 2011
Before: KEITH, MARTIN, and COOK, Circuit Judges.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. This matter is before the court upon
consideration of the motion filed by Correctional Medical Services, Inc.; Badawi
Abdellatif, M.D.; and Craig Hutchinson, M.D., to dismiss appeal Nos. 10-2106 and 10-
2467 for lack of jurisdiction. This court will address the motion only as it applies to
appeal No. 10-2467 because this court on February 4, 2011 dismissed appeal No. 10-
2106 for lack of jurisdiction.
It is argued in the motion to dismiss that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear
appeals taken directly from magistrate judges’ decisions, that the order denying Michael
Gresham’s motion to intervene is not immediately appealable, and that there has not
1
No. 10-2467 Jones v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., et al. Page 2
been a final decision entered in the case by the district court. Gresham responded in
opposition stating that this court should remand the case so that he may participate in the
upcoming trial, that he is asserting similar rights to those presented by Yvette Jones in
the pending 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, that his appeal should not wait until the
district court case is adjudicated, and that the presentation of his claims of inadequate
medical treatment and abusive treatment by prison staff would support the claims made
by Jones regarding the death of Raymond. E. Jones. Gresham also argues the merits of
his case.
Yvette Jones, as the personal representative of the estate of Raymond E. Jones,
filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action in the district court on April 28, 2009. In
December of 2009, the district court partially dismissed the case. On March 18, 2010,
the district court granted Jones’s motion for leave to amend the complaint.
In July of 2010, Gresham filed motions for joinder, for appointment of counsel,
to amend the complaint in order to bring his own claims before the court, and to certify
the case as a class action. Jones opposed Gresham’s request to be joined as a plaintiff
in the action. Gresham filed several more motions in the district court on July 22, 2010.
On August 2, 2010, the magistrate judge denied all of Gresham’s motions and struck his
proposed pleadings after determining that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 did not
support Gresham’s attempts to incorporate his claims into the action brought by Jones.
On August 13, 2010, Gresham sought review of the magistrate judge’s ruling by
the district court, and by this court (appeal No. 10-2106). The district court judge
affirmed the magistrate judge’s rulings by order entered on August 25, 2010.
On October 25, 2010, Gresham filed a document in the district court entitled
“NOTICE OF APPEAL (ALSO) MOTION TO COMPELL [SIC] ATTORNEY
GENERAL/U.S. DISTRICT COURT TO PROVIDE RECORDS OF ALL LOWER
COURT PROCEEDINGS . . . .” The district court docketed the October 25, 2010
document from Gresham as a notice of appeal, and this court docketed it as appeal No.
10-2467. On that document, Gresham listed both appeal No. 10-2106 and the district
court civil action No. 09-00392. The notice of appeal appears to seek this court to direct
No. 10-2467 Jones v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., et al. Page 3
either the attorney general or the district court to supply him with copies of all the
documents filed in the district court.
This court has jurisdiction to review final decisions of the district court as
provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1291, but no final or appealable order terminating all the issues
presented in the litigation has been entered by the district court. See Firestone Tire &
Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 373-75 (1981); Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S.
229, 233-34 (1945); Bonner v. Perry, 564 F.3d 424, 426-28 (6th Cir. 2009). Nor has any
order been entered which is immediately appealable under the “collateral order” doctrine
announced in Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). Moreover,
Gresham is not a party to the district court action, his October 25, 2010 notice of appeal
docketed as appeal No. 10-2467 does not seek review by this court of any specific order
entered by the district court judge, and the notice of appeal was not filed within the
appeal period of any order entered by the district court judge. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).
To the extent that the notice of appeal may be treated as a petition for a writ of
mandamus, this court must deny relief. “The remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to
be invoked only in extraordinary situations where the petitioner can show a clear and
indisputable right to the relief sought.” In re Am. President Lines, Ltd., 929 F.2d 226,
227 (6th Cir. 1991). Gresham has failed to show that he is entitled to be supplied copies
of all the documents filed in district court action No. 09-00392.
It is ordered that appeal No. 10-2467 be dismissed, and the notice of appeal to
the extent it may be construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.