Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02824/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02824-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

- 1 -

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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAVIN B. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

TIMOTHY G. O’CONNOR,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 18cv2824-LAB (LL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION [Dkt. 11]

On January 9, 2018, this Court ordered Plaintiff Gavin Davis to show cause why his 

case should not be dismissed without prejudice under the Younger abstention doctrine. 

Dkt. 5. The deadline for Davis to respond to that Order to Show Cause has come and gone, 

but instead of responding, Davis filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Presently 

before the Court is Davis’ Petition to Certify an Issue for Interlocutory Appeal. Dkt. 11. 

In the federal court system, appeals from non-final judgments are the exception, not 

the rule. Indeed, an appeal from an interlocutory decision is a matter of right only with 

respect to three types of district court decisions, none of which are relevant here. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1292(a) (permitting interlocutory appeals from decisions relating to injunctions, the

appointment of receivers, and certain admiralty cases). Section 1292(b), however, provides 

a catch-all exception that permits a district court, in its discretion, to certify an issue for 

interlocutory appeal if the district court’s “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 . . . .” 

Case 3:18-cv-02824-BAS-AGS Document 13 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
- 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

27

28

Id. § 1292(b). The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that this discretion is to be applied “sparingly 

and only in exceptional cases.” United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784, 788 n.11 (9th 

Cir.1959). Certification should only be used “in exceptional situations in which allowing an 

interlocutory appeal would avoid protracted and expensive litigation.” In re Cement Antitrust 

Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1981).

Plaintiff Gavin Davis asks this Court to certify for appeal several issues relating to his 

Section 1983 suit. But there are at least two procedural problems with Davis’ motion that 

make it unnecessary to reach the merits of his request. First, a request for certification 

should occur before the party actually appeals the district court’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292(b) (The circuit court has discretion to accept an appeal of a certified issue provided 

the application is made to the circuit court “within ten days after the entry of the [district 

court’s] order.”). Here, however, Davis took it on himself to file an interlocutory appeal 

before he filed a request for certification—in fact, Davis has already submitted an opening 

brief in his Ninth Circuit appeal. Second, there has not yet been a decision by this Court 

that would permit a certified interlocutory appeal even if the issues warranted appellate 

review (which they do not). Section 1292(b) provides that a district court may certify an 

issue related to an “order not otherwise appealable under this section.” The interlocutory 

order at issue here is an order to show cause. While an order to show cause is, in the most 

literal sense of the word, an “order,” it is not an “order” within the meaning of Section 

§1292(b). That statute contemplates that an interlocutory order would be a decision made 

by the district court. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (entitled “Interlocutory decisions”); Van 

Dusen v. Swift Transportation Co. Inc., 830 F.3d 893, 896 (9th Cir. 2016) (“District courts 

may certify a decision for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).”) (emphasis 

added). An order to show cause is not a decision, it is a call for additional briefing. A request 

for certification relating to an order to show cause is therefore procedurally improper. 

More fundamentally, certification is entirely unnecessary in this situation. The proper 

course of action would have been for Davis to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause

as he was ordered to do. Had Davis provided the Court with legal authority supporting his 

Case 3:18-cv-02824-BAS-AGS Document 13 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

27

28

position, the Court would permit him to continue litigating his case. If he failed to show 

cause, the case would be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine and Davis would 

be entitled to appeal as a matter of right. In other words, certification here would not 

“materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation” because the termination of the 

litigation, at least in this Court, is imminent. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Accordingly, there is no 

basis for certifying an interlocutory issue for appeal.

Davis’ Motion to Certify an Issue for Interlocutory Appeal is DENIED. Dkt. 11. An

Order on Davis’ failure to show cause is forthcoming.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02824-BAS-AGS Document 13 Filed 01/17/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3