Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00689/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00689-2/pdf.json

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

---

1

3:16-cv-0689-BEN-JMA

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

DOYLE WAYNE DAVIS,

CDCR #34318,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DANIEL PARAMO, Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-0689-BEN-JMA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO 

FILE AN INTERLOCUTORY 

APPEAL

[Doc. No. 54]

Plaintiff Doyle Wayne Davis is incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional 

Facility (“RJD”) in San Diego. He is proceeding pro se and has filed a civil Complaint 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before this Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for 

permission to file an interlocutory appeal regarding the Court’s denial of his request for a 

preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 54.) For the reasons that follow, the motion is 

DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On July 18, 2016, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for a 

preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff moved for reconsideration, and the 

Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. No. 40.) On both occasions, 

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 69 Filed 03/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-0689-BEN-JMA

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

the Court found that Plaintiff had failed to show that he was likely to suffer irreparable 

harm because his assertions of future incidents of retaliation and health complications 

were conjectural. See Caribbean Marine Servs. Co., Inc. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 675 

(9th Cir. 1988) (“Speculative injury does not constitute irreparable injury sufficient to 

warrant granting a preliminary injunction.”). In the order denying the motion for 

reconsideration, the Court also held that it lacked authority to issue an injunction for most 

of the relief sought because the requested relief related to events that occurred after 

Plaintiff filed his Complaint. See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 

810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015) (“[T]here must be a relationship between the injury 

claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying 

complaint.”). 

Plaintiff now moves for permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the Court’s 

denials of injunctive relief. He contends that the Court should construe his pleadings 

liberally to grant him the desired relief because his medical conditions are worsening.

DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) allows courts of appeal to review interlocutory orders 

“refusing . . . injunctions.” Therefore, the Court’s orders denying preliminary injunctive 

relief are immediately appealable orders. Plaintiff does not need the Court’s permission 

to appeal the denials. See Armstrong v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1019, 1021 (9th Cir. 1997) 

(“[I]nterlocutory appeals under § 1292(a) are ‘by right,’ while those under § 1292(b) are 

‘by permission.’”). Plaintiff’s motion for permission to file an interlocutory appeal is 

denied.

However, Plaintiff must file a notice of appeal in order to proceed. The Court will 

direct that Plaintiff’s request for permission to file an interlocutory appeal be construed as 

a notice of appeal of the orders denying his requests for preliminary injunctive relief.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for permission to file an interlocutory appeal (Doc. No. 54) is 

denied; and

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 69 Filed 03/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-0689-BEN-JMA

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

2. Plaintiff’s motion for permission to file an interlocutory appeal is construed as a 

notice of appeal of the previous orders denying preliminary injunctive relief (Doc. Nos. 

11, 40).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-00689-WQH-LL Document 69 Filed 03/23/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3