Sieverding v. Worldwest Limited Liability Co.

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
October 31, 2006
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
K A Y SIEV ER DIN G ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 06-3178
(D.C. No. 05-CV -2510-JW L)
W OR LDW EST LIM ITED (D . Kan.)
LIA BILITY CO M PA N Y ,
Defendant-Appellee.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before BARRETT, A ND ER SO N, and BALDOCK , Circuit Judges.
Kay Sieverding, proceeding pro se, appeals from the dismissal of her suit
against W orldwest LLC. The district court dismissed M s. Sieverding’s suit by
granting a motion filed by M s. Sieverding to dismiss the case without prejudice.
As a general rule, an order granting a motion to voluntarily dismiss without
*
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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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.
prejudice is not appealable. See Bryan v. Office of Personnel M anagement,
165 F.3d 1315, 1321 (10th Cir. 1999) (“Because [the plaintiff] voluntarily moved
to dismiss, she could not appeal the district court’s order”).
M s. Sieverding claims on appeal that her dismissal was not voluntary
because she stated in her motion that she was moving to dismiss the suit under
duress of jail. W hile it is true that M s. Sieverding’s motion states that she is
moving to dismiss under duress of jail, that does not change the fact that she
herself filed the motion and asked the court to dismiss the suit. The district court
then granted the requested relief. Because the district court was acting on
M s. Sieverding’s own request to dismiss the suit without prejudice, she may not
now appeal the district court’s decision to grant the requested relief. See Coffey
v. Whirlpool Corp., 591 F.2d 618, 620 (10th Cir. 1979) (“[W ]here the dismissal is
upon motion of the plaintiffs themselves, as here, we will not permit those
plaintiffs to appeal, saying that the court should not have granted their own
motion.”). The appeal is DISM ISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All outstanding
m otions are D EN IED .
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
-2-