Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02364/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02364-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

 Although the plaintiff's petition is captioned as being brought before the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court construes it as being initially addressed

to this Court inasmuch as 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) sets forth a two-step process: the

district court must first determine whether to certify an interlocutory appeal in a

civil action, and if it does so, then the court of appeals has the authority to decide

whether to permit the appeal to be taken. City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica

Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) ("[A] party must obtain certification

from both the district court and the court of appeals to bring an interlocutory

appeal.") (Emphasis in original).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Barry Northcross Patterson,

 Plaintiffs,

vs.

State of Arizona, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2364-PHX-PGR (MHB)

 

 ORDER

 

Pending before the Court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Appeal of this

Case Above Concurrent with USDC (Doc. 13), which the Court construes as a

motion for leave to file an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).1

Having reviewed the motion, the Court finds that it must be denied.

A district court may certify an issue for interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b)

Case 2:10-cv-02364-PGR Document 16 Filed 06/20/11 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 -

only when the issue involves a controlling question of law as to which there is

substantial ground for a difference of opinion, and an immediate appeal may

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. In re Cement Antitrust

Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir.1982). The party seeking an interlocutory

appeal under § 1292(b) has the heavy burden of establishing that “exceptional

circumstances justify a departure from the basic policy of postponing appellate

review until after the entry of a final judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay,

437 U.S. 463, 475, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2461 (1978).

The plaintiff is seeking an interlocutory appeal of those portions of the

Court’s screening order (Doc. 11), entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), in

which the Court dismissed without prejudice some of the claims and numerous

defendants in the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The plaintiff has not

demonstrated that any ruling in the screening order adverse to him constitutes an

exceptional circumstance warranting an immediate appeal inasmuch as he has

not identified any controlling question of law nor does he present any grounds for

difference of opinion or that an appeal will advance this litigation. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Appeal of this Case

Above Concurrent With USDC (Doc. 13), construed as a motion for leave to file

an interlocutory appeal, is denied.

DATED this 20th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02364-PGR Document 16 Filed 06/20/11 Page 2 of 2