Evans v. Johnson County District Attorney et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SHARMUS DARCEL EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO. 25-3156-JWL
JOHNSON COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Notice of Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 14)
challenging the Court's Memorandum and Order of October 8, 2025 (“M&O,” Doc. 9). The Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals has docketed the interlocutory appeal and assigned it Appeal Number 25-
3224. (Doc. 16.)
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals generally has jurisdiction to hear appeals only from
“final decisions” of district courts. Larson-White v. Rohling, No. 08-3246-SAC, 2008 WL
5427783, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 31, 2008) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1291). “An order that . . . sets the
stage for further trial court proceedings is not final.” Hayes Family Trust v. State Farm Fire &
Casualty Company, 845 F.3d 997, 1003 (10th Cir. 2017). Therefore, the M&O is an interlocutory
order.
In light of the jurisdictional limitation of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, “interlocutory appeals are the
exception and not the rule.” Larson-White, 2008 WL 5427783, at *1 (citing Myers v. Oklahoma
Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs., 80 F.3d 421, 424 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 963 (1996) (citing
Case 5:25-cv-03156-JWL Document 17 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 308 (1995)); see also Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183,
1189 (10th Cir. 2006) (“Interlocutory appeals have long been disfavored in the law, and properly
so.”). The Court must evaluate an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. ' 1292(b), which provides
in pertinent part:
When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not
otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that
such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there
is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate
appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order.
The Court of Appeals . . . may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an
appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within
ten days after the entry of the order. Provided, however, that
application for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the
district court unless the district judge or the Court of Appeals or a
judge thereof shall so order.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
The Court does not find that an immediate appeal from the Court’s non-dispositive order
of October 8, 2025, could materially advance the ultimate resolution of this matter. The Court’s
rulings do not involve a controlling question of law on which there is substantial ground for
difference of opinion. The Court thus declines to order certification of this case for interlocutory
appeal. In addition, the Court cautions Plaintiff that this matter is not automatically stayed by an
interlocutory appeal.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that certification of Plaintiff’s
interlocutory appeal (Doc. 14) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no stay will issue in this matter during the pendency
of the appeal.
Case 5:25-cv-03156-JWL Document 17 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 3

3
The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: This 23rd day of December, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03156-JWL Document 17 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 3