Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Cain v. Graf, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views6 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed Errol Cain's appeal of the district court's dismissal of some defendants and transfer of the case to Missouri. The court determined that once a case is physically transferred to another district court, the transferor court loses jurisdiction, including for purposes of appeal. While the district court's transfer was hastily executed without notice to Cain, he could still seek relief by asking the transferee court in Missouri to retransfer the case, so mandamus was not warranted. The appellate court therefore had no jurisdiction over the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1998-09-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 97-3328

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed Errol Cain's appeal of the district court's dismissal of some defendants and transfer of the case to Missouri. The court determined that once a case is physically transferred to another district court, the transferor court loses jurisdiction, including for purposes of appeal. While the district court's transfer was hastily executed without notice to Cain, he could still seek relief by asking the transferee court in Missouri to retransfer the case, so mandamus was not warranted. The appellate court therefore had no jurisdiction over the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    14 views6 pages

    Cain v. Graf, 10th Cir. (1998)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed Errol Cain's appeal of the district court's dismissal of some defendants and transfer of the case to Missouri. The court determined that once a case is physically transferred to another district court, the transferor court loses jurisdiction, including for purposes of appeal. While the district court's transfer was hastily executed without notice to Cain, he could still seek relief by asking the transferee court in Missouri to retransfer the case, so mandamus was not warranted. The appellate court therefore had no jurisdiction over the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 6

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    SEP 21 1998

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    ERROL DOUGLAS CAIN,


    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    WILLIAM GRAF, Warden,
    Leavenworth Detention Center;
    CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
    AMERICA; CARROL ST. CLAIR,
    Medical Supervisor, Leavenworth
    Detention Center; R. BRADFORD
    ENGLISH, U.S. Marshall, Western
    District of Missouri,

    No. 97-3328
    (D.C. No. 96-3281-GTV)
    (D. Kan.)

    Defendants-Appellees.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT

    Before BRORBY, McKAY, and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
    this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument.
    Plaintiff Errol Douglas Cain appeals the district courts dismissal of his
    civil rights claims against defendants Warden of Leavenworth Detention Center
    William Graf, Medical Supervisor of Leavenworth Detention Center Carrol St.
    Clair, and Corrections Corporation of America. Plaintiff also appeals the district
    courts transfer to Missouri of his claims against defendant R. Bradford English,
    United States Marshal from the Western District of Missouri. Because we
    determine that we have no jurisdiction over this matter, we dismiss plaintiffs
    appeal. 1
    Although the record is not factually complete, it appears that while plaintiff
    was being held in the Leavenworth Detention Center awaiting transfer to a
    Missouri facility, he incurred an injury to his knee. In his original complaint,
    brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, he alleged that defendants subjected him to
    cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights by
    denying him necessary medical treatment. In his amended complaint, plaintiff
    This court has an independent duty to inquire into its own jurisdiction.
    See Maier v. United States Envtl. Protection Agency
    , 114 F.3d 1032, 1036 (10th
    Cir.), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 599 (1997).
    1

    -2-

    added a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. 1981, alleging that he was not treated
    in the same manner as other similarly situated inmates. He also added as a
    defendant Marshal English, alleging that Marshal English was the person who
    refused to authorize medical care for plaintiff while he was being held at
    Leavenworth.
    On October 14, 1997, the district court, on its own motion and before
    service on defendants, summarily dismissed plaintiffs claims against the Kansas
    defendants for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The
    court concluded that plaintiff had alleged no state action in support of his 1983
    claims, see Jojola v. Chavez , 55 F.3d 488, 492 (10th Cir. 1995) (to prevail in
    federal court, a 1983 plaintiff must show the deprivation of a constitutional
    right by a person acting under color of state law), and no racial discrimination in
    support of his 1981 claims,

    see Olguin v. Lucero , 87 F.3d 401, 404-05 (10th

    Cir.) (relief under 1981 is premised upon a showing of discrimination against a


    person on the basis of race or ethnicity),

    cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 436 (1996).

    Finally, the court stated that, because the remaining defendant, Marshal English,
    resided in Missouri, the case should be transferred to the Western District of
    Missouri for further consideration of plaintiffs claims and plaintiffs pending
    motions. District Courts Order dated October 14, 1997, at 3. On October 22,

    -3-

    1997, the Western District of Missouri acknowledged receipt of plaintiffs file


    and docketed the case.
    This case is governed by

    Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc.

    928 F.2d 1509 (10th Cir. 1991). In

    Chrysler Credit , this court held that [o]nce

    the files in a case are transferred physically to the court in the transferee district,
    the transferor court loses all jurisdiction over the case, including the power to
    review the transfer.

    Id. at 1516-17 (footnote omitted). Appellate jurisdiction is

    lost when the papers in the transferred case are docketed in the transferee court.
    See id. at 1517. As the transferor circuit, this court cannot review the transfer
    order unless the district court has transferred the case without proper authority, or
    the transferee court lacks jurisdiction over the case.

    See id. at 1517 n.6. These

    exceptions are not present here.


    The district court entered partial judgment as to the Kansas defendants
    before transferring the action. We would have jurisdiction to review the partial
    judgment only where the district court has certified the judgment under Fed. R.
    Civ. P. 54(b) or properly severed the action into two separate actions pursuant to
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.

    See Chrysler Credit Corp. 928 F.2d at 1517 n.7, 1519. Absent

    a Rule 54(b) certification or a Rule 21 severance in this case, we must conclude


    that the district court transferred the entire action to the Western District of
    Missouri, thus divesting this court of jurisdiction.
    -4-

    Under these circumstances, mandamus would have been the appropriate


    remedy for plaintiff to seek to test the validity of the transfer order.
    v. United States (In re Dalton)

    See Dalton

    , 733 F.2d 710, 716 (10th Cir. 1984). Within one

    week of the district courts order, the case file had been physically transferred and
    the case had been docketed in Missouri without notice to plaintiff, a hearing, or
    an opportunity for plaintiff to seek mandamus relief. Therefore, we construe
    plaintiffs notice of appeal as a petition for a writ of mandamus,

    see Boughton v.

    Cotter Corp. , 10 F.3d 746, 750-51 (10th Cir. 1993), and briefly address whether
    plaintiff would have been entitled to mandamus relief.
    To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, plaintiff must show, inter alia, that he
    has no other adequate means to secure the relief desired.

    Pacificare of Okla.,

    Inc. v. Burrage , 59 F.3d 151, 153 (10th Cir. 1995) (further quotation omitted).
    Here, plaintiff can move the Missouri district court for retransfer. Once he has
    done so, the transferee appellate court has jurisdiction to review the original
    transfer order, affording

    plaintiff an adequate means of relief other than

    mandamus. See Petersen v. Douglas County Bank & Trust Co.

    , 940 F.2d 1389,

    1392 (10th Cir. 1991). Therefore, even though the district courts hastily
    executed transfer order effectively precluded plaintiff from seeking mandamus
    relief, given plaintiffs adequate means of relief in the transferee court, this court
    would have denied mandamus, and the district courts error was harmless.
    -5-

    See id.

    In sum, the district court lost jurisdiction on October 22, 1997, the date the
    case was docketed in the Western District of Missouri. This date also marks the
    termination of appellate jurisdiction in the transferor circuit.

    Id. at 1391.

    Plaintiffs appeal is DISMISSED.

    Entered for the Court


    Wade Brorby
    Circuit Judge

    -6-

    You might also like