Background
J. Doe, proceeding pro se, appealed a district court order referring her case back to a magistrate judge to allow additional time to seek relief from a final judgment based on her voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure sixty-one B. She also moved for reconsideration and the application of intervening new law to her underlying case.
The court’s reasoning
The court explained that it may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders under Section twelve ninety-one of Title twenty-eight of the United States Code, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders under Section twelve ninety-two of Title twenty-eight of the United States Code. The orders Doe sought to appeal were neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. The court noted that although the district court later entered a final judgment ruling on the Rule sixty-one B motion, the doctrine of cumulative finality did not cure the jurisdictional defect because neither order could have been certified for immediate appeal.
What it means going forward
The dismissal reinforces that parties cannot appeal procedural orders that do not meet the strict criteria for finality or specific interlocutory appealability, even if a final judgment is entered later on related motions.