Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01250/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01250-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

JOHNNY EARL EVANS, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-1250 OWW/SMS P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO STAY CIVIL

COMPLAINT PROCEEDINGS

PURSUANT TO RULE 8(a),

FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE (Doc. 28) AND 

MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY

APPEAL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(b) (Doc. 29)

On April 17, 2007, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding in

pro per, filed a “Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay Civil

Complaint Proceedings, Pursuant to (FRAP) Rule 8(a)” and a 

"Notice of Motion and Motion for Interlocutory Appeal from

District Court's Order Denying Objections and Reinstatement of

Motions, With Prejudice (Docs. 21 and 23) Pursuant to (FRAP) Rule

5(a), 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)". Plaintiff filed both motions with

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit Clerk’s

Office forwarded both motions to this Court for resolution.

Case 1:06-cv-01250-ALA Document 33 Filed 05/30/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Plaintiff moves for certification of an interlocutory appeal

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) of the Orders filed on March 30,

2007. (Doc. 24). The March 30, 2007 Order denied Plaintiff’s

motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order

dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with leave to amend,

(Doc. 12), denied Plaintiff’s motion for reinstatement of motions

to recuse the Magistrate Judge, to transfer the case, and for

preliminary injunctive relief, (Docs. 21 and 23). 

Section 1292(b) 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 which would have jurisdiction of an

appeal of such action 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.

Section 1292(b) is to be used only in exceptional situations in

which allowing an interlocutory appeal would avoid protracted and

expensive litigation. United States Rubber Co. v. Wright, 359

F.2d 784, 785 (9 Cir. 1966). Plaintiff must demonstrate that th

(1) there is a controlling question of law, (2) that there are

substantial grounds for difference of opinion, and (3) that an

Case 1:06-cv-01250-ALA Document 33 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 5
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

3

immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination

of the litigation. In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d

1020, 1026 (9 Cir. 1982). “[A]ll that must be shown in order th

for a question [of law] to be ‘controlling’ is that resolution of

the issue on appeal could affect the outcome of litigation in the

district court.” In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, id., 673

F.2d at 1026. To demonstrate “a substantial ground for

difference of opinion” on a question for Section 1292(b)

certification, the moving party must show more than its own

disagreement with a court’s ruling. The term refers to the legal

standard applied in the decision for which certification is

sought and whether other courts have substantially differed in

applying that standard. See Harter v. GAF Corp., 150 F.R.D. 502,

518 (D.N.J. 1993).

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged he was falsely cited for

threatening the safety of the institution in which he was

confined and was found guilty of a lesser rules violation. He

was placed in administrative segregation. He filed this suit,

was afforded leave to amend his complaint which fails to state a

claim, and then sought preliminary injunctive relief claiming he

was being denied law library access.

Given these standards, Plaintiff’s motion to certify an

immediate appeal is DENIED. Whether Plaintiff has demonstrated a

controlling question of law and substantial grounds for

difference of opinion is not addressed because Plaintiff has not

shown that an immediate appeal will materially advance the

Case 1:06-cv-01250-ALA Document 33 Filed 05/30/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

ultimate termination of the litigation, i.e., that this is an

exceptional situation where an immediate appeal will avoid

protracted and expensive litigation. 

Plaintiff’s statement of the issues he seeks to certify for

immediate appeal include his contentions that the court erred in

dismissing the Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Prior to

seeking certification under Section 1292(b), Plaintiff filed a

Second Amended Complaint pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s

Order. (Doc. 20). Plaintiff did not file “objections” to the

Magistrate Judge’s Order dismissing the Amended Complaint until

after he had filed the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 21)

Plaintiff has not demonstrated an exceptional situation in which

allowance of an interlocutory appeal will avoid protracted and

expensive litigation.

Plaintiff’s statement of issues he seeks to certify for

immediate appeal also include his contention that the Magistrate

Judge and the District Court used an inappropriate absence of

case or controversy standard in denying Plaintiff’s motion for

temporary restraining order directing Defendants to refrain from

using retaliatory measures against Plaintiff and providing the

access to the prison law library that he seeks. Plaintiff has

not demonstrated an exceptional situation in which allowance of

an interlocutory appeal will avoid protracted and expensive

litigation. Now that Plaintiff has filed his Second Amended

Complaint, he may, if justified by law and equity, re-present a

legally sufficient motion for temporary restraining order.

Case 1:06-cv-01250-ALA Document 33 Filed 05/30/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Plaintiff’s statement of issues he seeks to certify for

immediate appeal include his contentions that the District Court

erred in failing to transfer the case to another Magistrate Judge

and in failing to admonish the Magistrate Judge for erroneous

rulings. Again, Plaintiff has not demonstrated an exceptional

situation in which allowance of the interlocutory appeal will

avoid protracted and expensive litigation.

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion for

interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is DENIED. 

Because of this denial, Plaintiff’s motion for stay pending the

appeal is DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01250-ALA Document 33 Filed 05/30/07 Page 5 of 5