United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 8, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-31032
Summary Calendar
KARSTON KEELEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(01-CV-332-C)
--------------------
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Karston Keelen, Louisiana prisoner #
125690, appeals the district court’s order directing that “the
Clerk administratively terminate this action in his records,
without prejudice to the right of the parties to re-open the
proceedings upon resolution of the pending appeal.” The court’s
order further provided that “[t]his Order shall not be considered
a dismissal of this matter, and any party may take action to re-
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
initiate this case should further proceedings become necessary or
desirable.”
We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction on our own
motion if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th
Cir. 1987). Federal appellate courts only have jurisdiction over
appeals from (1) final orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) orders
that are deemed final due to jurisprudential exception or that
properly can be certified as final pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b);
and (3) interlocutory orders that fall into specific classes, 28
U.S.C. § 1292(a), or that have been properly certified for appeal
by the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). See Askanase v.
Livingwell, Inc., 981 F.2d 807, 810 (5th Cir. 1993). Generally, a
final decision for purposes of § 1291 ends the litigation on the
merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the
judgment. Briargrove Shopping Center Joint Venture v. Pilgrim
Enterprises, Inc., 170 F.3d 536, 539 (5th Cir. 1999). Here, the
district court specifically stated that its order was not to be
“considered a dismissal of disposition of the matter,” and that any
party could take action to re-initiate the case. That order was
not a final judgment. See id. As we therefore lack jurisdiction,
this appeal is
DISMISSED.
2