U.S. v. Brakke
| Decision Date | 17 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 86-5425,86-5427 and 86-5428,86-5426,s. 86-5425 |
| Citation | 813 F.2d 912 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ronald BRAKKE a/k/a Ron Brakke, Appellant, and Chester Brakke. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Ronald and Chester Brakke appeal from orders entered in the District Court 1 denying their motions to dismiss and refusing to set aside a magistrate's order for a final pretrial conference and denying motions for "Order to Show Cause." Ronald Brakke also appeals the magistrate's 2 order denying a demand for recusal. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the appeals without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
On May 21, 1985, the United States commenced an action for foreclosure of its security interest in stored grain and for a deficiency judgment against Ronald, Jean and Chester Brakke after Ronald Brakke defaulted on four promissory notes totalling approximately $173,000. Jean and Chester Brakke each had co-signed one of the notes. On June 12, 1985, appellants filed separate motions to dismiss asserting lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and persons, insufficiency of process and service of process, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On October 10, 1986, the magistrate issued an order setting a final pretrial conference for November 12, 1986. On October 29, Ronald Brakke filed a notice of appeal with the district court from the magistrate's order. He also filed an affidavit alleging prejudice on the part of the magistrate and demanded that she recuse herself from the case. On November 4, the district court denied the Brakkes' motions to dismiss and refused to set aside the magistrate's pretrial conference order. On November 10, Ronald and Chester Brakke filed notices and motions captioned "Motion for Order to Show Cause," demanding that the United States produce an injured party or be held in contempt of court. The district court denied the motions as frivolous. On November 12, the magistrate denied Ronald Brakke's motion requesting recusal. Ronald and Chester Brakke filed appeals from these orders, which have been consolidated for the purposes of review.
This court has jurisdiction over appeals "from final decisions of the district courts." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. The orders on appeal here are pretrial orders, not final decisions, and therefore are not reviewable at this time. 3 "[D]enial of a motion to dismiss, even when the motion is based upon jurisdictional grounds, is not immediately reviewable." Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 236, 65 S.Ct. 631, 635, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945); see, e.g., United States v. Layton, 645 F.2d 681 (9th Cir.1981) (); Hydraulic Press Manufacturing Co. v. Moore, 185 F.2d 800 (8th Cir.1950) (); see also United States v. Grabinski, 674 F.2d 677 (8th Cir.) (banc) (per curiam) (orders denying defendant's motion to dismiss because of alleged vindictive prosecution, denial of speedy trial and lack of probable cause not immediately appealable), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 829, 103 S.Ct. 67, 74 L.Ed.2d 67 (1982); United States v. Martin, 620 F.2d 237 (10th Cir.) (order denying motion to dismiss challenging venue not immediately appealable), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 890, 101 S.Ct. 248, 66 L.Ed.2d 116 (1980).
The district court's refusal to set aside the magistrate's order for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re M & S Grading, Inc.
...final order, but is instead viewed as an unreviewable pretrial order or interlocutory decision. See United States v. Brakke, 813 F.2d 912, 913 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam); see also Elscint, Inc. v. First Wisconsin Finan. Corp. (In re Xonics), 813 F.2d 127, 130 (7th Cir.1987) ("refusal to ho......
-
Hafley v. Lohman
...§ 1291, a denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is not a final appealable order. See United States v. Brakke, 813 F.2d 912, 913 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam); see also Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 275-76, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 1136, 99 L.Ed.2d 29......
-
Skender ex rel. Situated v. Eden Isle Corp.
...true that we have held that orders denying a motion to recuse are not final, appealable orders. See, e.g. , United States v. Brakke , 813 F.2d 912, 913 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Scarrella v. Midwest Fed. Sav. & Loan , 536 F.2d 1207, 1210 (8th Cir. 1976) (per curiam). The typically clear......
-
Entergy, Arkansas, Inc. v. State of NE
...with those appealable at the interlocutory stage. Swint v. Chambers County Comm'n, 514 U.S. 35, 51 (1995), see United States v. Brakke, 813 F.2d 912, 913 (8th Cir. 1987) (denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is not a final appealable order). An issue is "inextricably i......