DAVIS v. RUNNELS, 2:05-cv-1898-JAM-EFB P. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140606a42
Visitors: 32
Filed: Jun. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2014
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In "objections" filed May 2, 2014, he requests that the court certify for interlocutory appeal the magistrate judge's January 2, 2014 order denying his request for appointment of counsel. 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) permits a district court to certify an order for interlocutory appellate review where the order involves (1) "a controlling question of law," (2) "as
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. In "objections" filed May 2, 2014, he requests that the court certify for interlocutory appeal the magistrate judge's January 2, 2014 order denying his request for appointment of counsel. 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) permits a district court to certify an order for interlocutory appellate review where the order involves (1) "a controlling question of law," (2) "as ..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In "objections" filed May 2, 2014, he requests that the court certify for interlocutory appeal the magistrate judge's January 2, 2014 order denying his request for appointment of counsel.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) permits a district court to certify an order for interlocutory appellate review where the order involves (1) "a controlling question of law," (2) "as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion," and (3) where "an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." "[T]he party pursuing the interlocutory appeal bears the burden of ... demonstrating" that all three requirements have been met. Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010). Section 1292(b) is "to be used only in exceptional situations in which allowing an interlocutory appeal would avoid protracted and expensive litigation." In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982).
Plaintiff's request to certify the order for interlocutory appeal is denied because the requirements set forth in § 1292(b) have not been met.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's "objections," construed as a motion for certification of interlocutory appeal (ECF No. 126), is denied.
Source: Leagle
