McClanahan v. Wilson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 7, 2021
• Docket: 21-30106
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 21-30106 Document: 00515928385 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED July 7, 2021 No. 21-30106 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

Michael McClanahan; Gary Chambers; Eugene Collins,

Plaintiffs—Appellees,

versus

Scott Wilson,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:17-CV-1720

Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Defendant Scott Wilson seeks interlocutory review of the denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. He contends that we have appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. Generally, we are limited to reviewing “final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-30106 Document: 00515928385 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2021

No. 21-30106

§ 1291. But under the collateral order doctrine, a district court’s decision is immediately appealable if it “(1) conclusively determined the disputed question, (2) resolved an important issue separate from the merits of the case, and (3) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” In re Deepwater Horizon, 793 F.3d 479, 484 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006)). The doctrine is narrow. Indeed, the Supreme Court “has repeatedly stressed that the conditions for appeal under the collateral order doctrine are ‘stringent.’” Id. This case fails to satisfy the third condition because “[t]he question of subject matter jurisdiction is far from unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Matter of Greene Cnty. Hosp., 835 F.2d 589, 596 (5th Cir. 1988). IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.