United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 18, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 04-30430 Clerk
RALEIGH E. GUYNES; RALEIGH E. GUYNES IRA,
Plaintiffs - Appellants
versus
STANFORD GROUP COMPANY; ET AL,
Defendants
STANFORD GROUP COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(No. 2:03-CV-1665-B)
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Prior to reaching the merits of an appeal, we must determine,
sua sponte, whether we have appellate jurisdiction.2 The parties
have drawn our attention to the fact that no final judgment
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 has been entered dismissing defendant
1
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
2
Hernandez v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs.,
380 F.3d 872, 878 (5th Cir. 2004).
Steven Boatner.3 When there are multiple parties to an action, an
order of judgment dismissing claims as to some, but not all,
parties does not result in a final judgment reviewable in this
court absent a certification by the district court under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).4 Although the district court’s
order was labeled “Final Judgment” and dismissed “all claims,” it
did so as to “the” defendant (singular). Steven Boatner, who is
Stanford Group Company’s co-defendant, was not named on the face of
the judgment, which has not been expressly certified for appeal
under Rule 54(b) and cannot reasonably be construed as such.
Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
ENDRECORD
3
See Brown v. Miss. Valley State Univ., 311 F.3d 328, 331
(5th Cir. 2002)(“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, our appellate
jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final decisions of the
district courts.”)(internal quotations omitted).
4
Id.
2
WIENER, Circuit Judge, Specially Concurring:
When we dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we
generally write nothing because anything else would be dicta. In
this instance, however, I write briefly as a prudential matter in
the belief that doing so might be of assistance to the district
court. When, at oral argument, counsel alerted us to the possible
flaw in appellate jurisdiction, they also reiterated a central
point of contention from their appellate briefs, viz., whether or
not there is also a problem regarding subject matter jurisdiction
—— specifically, whether there is an absence of pure diversity of
citizenship. On remand, the district court might wish to re-
examine its ruling on subject matter jurisdiction, keeping in mind
that, if the court is to have such jurisdiction grounded in
diversity of citizenship, Boatner must be not only a non-resident
of Louisiana but also a resident of some other state, presumably
Florida. This is because a United States citizen who, for purposes
of diversity, does not reside anywhere in this country is neither
a citizen of any state nor an alien, and is therefore not
susceptible to the jurisdiction of the federal courts. See Newman-
Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 828 (1989).
3