Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01675/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01675-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY SWENSON, No. CIV S-08-1675-FCD-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

SISKIYOU COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action. Pending before

the court is plaintiff’s motion for a stay of proceedings (Doc. 100). Plaintiff seeks a stay pending

resolution by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of a motion in that court to reconsider its

dismissal of plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal. A review of the docket reflects that the appellate

court dismissed plaintiff’s appeal of this court’s discovery orders for lack of appellate

jurisdiction. Specifically, the appellate court concluded the orders in question are not appealable

prior to entry of final judgment in the action. See Riverhead Sav. Bank v. Nat’l Mortgage

Equity Corp., 893 F.2d 1109, 1113 (9th Cir. 1990); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Plaintiff has not

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 103 Filed 09/16/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

suggested any plausible basis whatsoever for reconsideration of the appellate court’s dismissal

order. Accordingly, good cause not having been shown, plaintiff’s request for a stay of these

proceedings is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 16, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 103 Filed 09/16/10 Page 2 of 2