Filed: Jan. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 29, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING IFP ON APPEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 56, 57; 74, 75 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . On December 31, 2018 and January 2, 2019, plaintiff Raq Bey filed four motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Dkt. Nos. 56, 57 in 18-2626; and 74, 75 in 18-2628. In both cases, plaintiff attempts to appeal this Court's November 29, 2018 Order Granting in part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 49; 67), and this Court's December 11, 2018 Order Denying a Motion for
Summary: ORDER DENYING IFP ON APPEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 56, 57; 74, 75 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . On December 31, 2018 and January 2, 2019, plaintiff Raq Bey filed four motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Dkt. Nos. 56, 57 in 18-2626; and 74, 75 in 18-2628. In both cases, plaintiff attempts to appeal this Court's November 29, 2018 Order Granting in part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 49; 67), and this Court's December 11, 2018 Order Denying a Motion for ..
More
ORDER DENYING IFP ON APPEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 56, 57; 74, 75
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
On December 31, 2018 and January 2, 2019, plaintiff Raq Bey filed four motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. See Dkt. Nos. 56, 57 in 18-2626; and 74, 75 in 18-2628. In both cases, plaintiff attempts to appeal this Court's November 29, 2018 Order Granting in part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 49; 67), and this Court's December 11, 2018 Order Denying a Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 52; 70). Plaintiff has since filed an amended complaint in 18-2626 (Dkt. No. 58).
On January 22, 2019, the Ninth Circuit dismissed plaintiff's appeal in 18-2628 for lack of jurisdiction, noting that, "this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the orders challenged in the appeal are not final or appealable." Dkt. No. 76; See 28 U.S. C. §1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Following the Ninth Circuit's guidance, as there are no factual discrepancies between the pending applications, and because final judgment has not been entered in either case, plaintiff's motions for leave to appeal in forma pauperis are DENIED at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
