Conerly v. Ordeneaux , 143 F. App'x 575 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                                         United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                    July 22, 2005
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 04-31193
    Summary Calendar
    KEDRICK D. CONERLY,
    Plaintiff,
    versus
    ALLEN J. ORDENEAUX, Individually and in
    His Official Capacity; MITCH ARNOLD, Individually
    and In His Official Capacity; CITY OF HAMMOND,
    as His State Law Claim Employer,
    Defendants-Appellees,
    versus
    J. COURTNEY WILSON,
    Movant-Appellant.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 2:04-CV-1580
    --------------------
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    J. Courtney Wilson, attorney for plaintiff Kedrick D.
    Conerly in this 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action, seeks to appeal the
    sanctions order issued following his failure to appear at a
    scheduled pretrial conference and the magistrate judge’s
    *
    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    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
    No. 04-31193
    -2-
    determination that he had not adequately complied with her
    resulting order requiring him to write a letter of apology to
    opposing counsel.
    This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its
    own motion, if necessary.     Mosley v. Cozby, 
    813 F.2d 659
    , 660
    (5th Cir. 1987).    The sanctions order being appealed is not a
    final decision within the meaning of 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     as it did
    not end the litigation on the merits.       See Cunningham v. Hamilton
    County, Ohio, 
    527 U.S. 198
    , 204 (1999).       Contrary to Wilson’s
    assertion, the order is not an immediately appealable civil
    contempt order.     See Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v.
    Bagwell, 
    512 U.S. 821
    , 827-28 (1994).       The order imposing
    sanctions against Wilson as an attorney, whether imposed pursuant
    to FED. R. CIV. P. 16(f) or the court’s inherent power, is not an
    immediately appealable collateral order.       See Cunningham, 
    527 U.S. at 206-10
    ; Williams v. Midwest Employers Cas. Co., 
    243 F.3d 208
    , 209-10 (5th Cir. 2001); Click v. Abilene Nat’l Bank, 
    822 F.2d 544
    , 545 (5th Cir. 1987).
    Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of
    jurisdiction.