William Burton, Jr. v. Sgt. Irvin Palmer Sgt. J. J. Mr. Simmons, an Officer Mr. Puller, an Officer (Jesse Pulley)

Sixth Circuit

William Burton, Jr. v. Sgt. Irvin Palmer Sgt. J. J. Mr. Simmons, an Officer Mr. Puller, an Officer (Jesse Pulley)

782 F.2d 1041, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 13759, 1985 WL 14108

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 16, 1985

Docket85-1104

StatusUnpublished

This text of 782 F.2d 1041 (William Burton, Jr. v. Sgt. Irvin Palmer Sgt. J. J. Mr. Simmons, an Officer Mr. Puller, an Officer (Jesse Pulley)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William Burton, Jr. v. Sgt. Irvin Palmer Sgt. J. J. Mr. Simmons, an Officer Mr. Puller, an Officer (Jesse Pulley), 782 F.2d 1041, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 13759, 1985 WL 14108 (6th Cir. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

782 F.2d 1041

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
WILLIAM BURTON, JR., Petitioner-Appellant
v.
SGT. IRVIN PALMER; SGT. J. J.; MR. SIMMONS, AN OFFICER; MR.
PULLER, AN OFFICER (JESSE PULLEY), Respondents-Appellees.

85-1104

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

12/16/85

ORDER

BEFORE: ENGEL, KENNEDY and MILBURN, Circuit Judges.

Burton appeals from the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum in his civil rights case. The appeal is before the Court sua sponte under Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, for consideration of a possible jurisdictional defect.

Burton is currently incarcerated in a state prison in Arkansas. His civil rights case is pending in the Western District of Michigan. His petition requested that he be brought to Michigan to testify at trial. The district court entered an order denying the petition.

Burton's request for a writ is in the nature of a pre-trial discovery matter. The general rule is that a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal following a final judgment on the merits. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 374 (1981). Pre-trial discovery orders are generally not final and appealable. Dow Chemical Co. v. Taylor, 519 F.2d 352, 354 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1033 (1975). Here Burton will be able to raise the denial of his request for a writ on final appeal from the judgment of the Court. So the district court's order was not final and appealable.

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 9(d)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

782 F.2d 1041

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
WILLIAM BURTON, JR., Petitioner-Appellant
v.
SGT. IRVIN PALMER; SGT. J. J.; MR. SIMMONS, AN OFFICER; MR.
PULLER, AN OFFICER (JESSE PULLEY), Respondents-Appellees.

85-1104

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

12/16/85

ORDER

BEFORE: ENGEL, KENNEDY and MILBURN, Circuit Judges.

Burton appeals from the district court's order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum in his civil rights case. The appeal is before the Court sua sponte under Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, for consideration of a possible jurisdictional defect.

Burton is currently incarcerated in a state prison in Arkansas. His civil rights case is pending in the Western District of Michigan. His petition requested that he be brought to Michigan to testify at trial. The district court entered an order denying the petition.

Burton's request for a writ is in the nature of a pre-trial discovery matter. The general rule is that a party must ordinarily raise all claims of error in a single appeal following a final judgment on the merits. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 374 (1981). Pre-trial discovery orders are generally not final and appealable. Dow Chemical Co. v. Taylor, 519 F.2d 352, 354 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1033 (1975). Here Burton will be able to raise the denial of his request for a writ on final appeal from the judgment of the Court. So the district court's order was not final and appealable.

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 9(d)(1), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

782 F.2d 1041, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 13759, 1985 WL 14108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-burton-jr-v-sgt-irvin-palmer-sgt-j-j-mr-si-ca6-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack