PERRYMAN v. BAL, 2:14-cv-680-WBS-EFB P. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160121715
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 20, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2016
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. He seeks an order from this court certifying its December 1, 2015 order for interlocutory appeal. 1 ECF No. 45. That order denied plaintiff's request to stay this action so that he could file an amended complaint, conduct further discovery, and obtain the court's appointment of an expert witness. ECF No. 44. An interlocutory appeal of a non-fin
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM B. SHUBB , District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. He seeks an order from this court certifying its December 1, 2015 order for interlocutory appeal. 1 ECF No. 45. That order denied plaintiff's request to stay this action so that he could file an amended complaint, conduct further discovery, and obtain the court's appointment of an expert witness. ECF No. 44. An interlocutory appeal of a non-fina..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks an order from this court certifying its December 1, 2015 order for interlocutory appeal.1 ECF No. 45. That order denied plaintiff's request to stay this action so that he could file an amended complaint, conduct further discovery, and obtain the court's appointment of an expert witness. ECF No. 44.
An interlocutory appeal of a non-final order may be certified if the district court determines 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." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The order in question does not meet this standard.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there is a controlling question of law at stake or that an interlocutory appeal will facilitate disposition of this action or materially advance the ultimate termination of this action.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for the court to grant him permission for an immediate interlocutory appeal (ECF No. 45) is denied.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff mistakenly refers to this order as dated November 20, 2015.
Source: Leagle
