Johnson v. Crown Enterprises Inc. , 178 F. App'x 393 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 2, 2006
_______________________
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-30373 Clerk
Summary Calendar
_______________________
JOHNNY L JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CROWN ENTERPRISES INC, ET AL,
Defendants,
KEVIN MEDINE, MICHAEL CAMPESI and LOUIS JORDAN,
Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
No. 3:01-CV-481
_________________________________________________________________
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Johnny L. Johnson challenges the district
court’s denial of his motion to amend his complaint to include the
individual Appellees. Because this court lacks jurisdiction to
reach the merits of Johnson’s appeal, we DISMISS.
I. BACKGROUND
The facts are undisputed. On June 15, 2001, Johnson
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
filed a lawsuit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Johnson alleged that he was terminated because of his race.
On July 23, 2002, the district court issued an order permitting
Johnson to amend his complaint for the purposes of including a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. On October 10, 2003, the district
court dismissed all claims, including the § 1981 claim, as not
timely filed. Johnson timely appealed to this court. On February
15, 2005, this court reversed the district court to allow Johnson
to state a cause of action under § 1981, relating back to the
original Title VII claim. Post-reversal, Johnson sought to amend
his complaint to include the individual Appellees, who at no point
were named as parties to the original suit. The district court
denied Johnson’s motion to amend his complaint. Johnson now
appeals, seeking relief from the district court’s denial of his
motion to amend his complaint to include these Appellees.
II. DISCUSSION
Before reaching the merits, this court must consider
whether we have appellate jurisdiction over the district court’s
order denying Johnson’s motion to amend his complaint. Because no
certificate of appealability was issued by the district court under
FED. RULE CIV. PROC. 54(b), we turn our attention to jurisdiction
granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Section 1291 states that, “[t]he
court of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final
decisions of the district courts of the United States.” The
2
Supreme Court has held that “a decision is ordinarily considered
final and appealable under § 1291 only if it ends the litigation on
the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the
judgment.” Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co. 517 U.S. 706, 712, 116
S. Ct. 1712, 1718 (1996). It is well settled that orders granting
or denying motions to add parties are not final within the meaning
of § 1291. See McClune v. Shamah, 593 F.2d 482 (3d Cir. 1979); see
also Fowler v. Merry, 468 F.2d 242, 243 (10th Cir. 1972)
(“Although an order refusing or permitting the filing of an amended
complaint joining an additional party is a discretionary action by
the trial court and subject to appellate review as part of an
ultimate judgment, the order itself is not appealable as such in
isolation.”).
Under the collateral order doctrine, an exception to the
final order requirement is limited to decisions that are
“conclusive, that resolve important questions separate from the
merits, and are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final
judgment in the underlying action.” Swint v. Chambers County
Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 42, 115 S. Ct. 1203, 1208 (1995). We are not
persuaded that this case presents a situation indicating allowable
review under the collateral order doctrine.
In the instant case, nothing in the district court’s
ruling prevents Johnson from pursuing his § 1981 claim against
Dixie Harvesting Company, one of the original Defendants. However,
this court lacks jurisdiction over Johnson’s appeal to amend his
3
complaint and therefore, his appeal is dismissed.
DISMISSED.
4