Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00706/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00706-3/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

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL ADAMS, Civil No. 10cv0706-CAB (BLM)

Plaintiff,

ORDER:

1) DENYING REQUEST TO APPEAL

[Doc. No. 61]; and,

2) GRANTING REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION TO TIME TO FILE

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 63]

v.

ARAB, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by

failing to provide him with adequate medical care. [Doc. Nos. 7&8.] Defendants filed motions to

dismiss. [Doc. Nos. 27 & 46.] On January 23, 2012, the Court granted the defendants’ motions to

dismiss. [Doc. No. 60.] The Court allowed Plaintiff leave to amend only as to Eighth Amendment

claims against Defendants Ball, Hjerpe, Lopez and Small. [Id. at 4.] Defendant Arab did not challenge

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against him, so that claim remains in the case. [Id. at 4, n.2.] On

February 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a document entitled, “Request to appeal judgment in part of the matter

above to appeal all defendants dismissed from complaint, and to forward necessary papers to Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals.” [Doc. No. 61.] On February 23, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for an

extension of time to amend the complaint. [Doc. No. 63.] The Court addresses each of these motions

below.

1 10cv0706

Case 3:10-cv-00706-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 03/20/12 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

27

28

A. Request to appeal

The Court construes Plaintiffs “request to appeal judgment in part” [Doc. No. 61] as a request for

an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and partial judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 54(b). It appears Plaintiff is seeking immediate appellate review of the Court’s

dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendants Ball, Hjerpe, Lopez, Small, and 1

Arab. [Doc. No. 61, at 1.] The general rule, however, is that an appellate court should not review a

district court ruling until after entry of a final judgment. Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463,

478 (1978); In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court has not

entered final judgment in this case. Plaintiff, therefore, may not appeal the Court’s order, or any other

decision rendered in this case, at this time unless one of the exceptions discussed below apply.

1. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)

Under federal law, a district court may certify for appeal an otherwise unappealable decision in

certain exceptional circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). A party seeking an interlocutory appeal

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) must demonstrate that (1) there is a controlling question of law; (2)

there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion regarding the issue; and (3) an immediate appeal

may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673

F.2d at 1026. This burden is high. See United States Rubber Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784, 785 (9th Cir.

1966). District courts should not certify an issue for interlocutory appeal unless it would help avoid

protracted and expensive litigation. Id.

In this case, the Court finds no controlling question of law at issue. See In re Cement Antitrust

Litigation, 673 F.2d at 1026 (questions of law appropriate for interlocutory appeal include “the

determination of who are necessary and proper parties, whether a court to which a cause has been

transferred has jurisdiction, or whether state or federal law should be applied.”). The Court dismissed

Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, because Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated state

regulation, which is not a basis for asserting a constitutional violation. [Doc. No. 60, at 2.] Nor does

Plaintiff’s placement in segregated housing give rise to a constitutionally protected liberty interest. [Id.

 In the “request to appeal,” Plaintiff states that he wishes to appeal dismissal of the First and 1

Fourteenth Amendment claims. However, it appears he previously conceded that the First Amendment

claim was subject to dismissal. [Doc. No. 60, at 2 n.1.]

2 10cv0706

Case 3:10-cv-00706-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 03/20/12 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

27

28

at 3.] Further, the Court dismissed the claims against Defendant Small, because Plaintiff failed to allege

that Small personally participated in any deprivation of Plaintiff’s rights. [Id.] The Court finds no

substantial grounds for a difference of opinion or conflicting bodies of law with respect to these bases

for dismissal, and Plaintiff has not identified any split of authority. Finally, the Court finds an

immediate appeal of this Court’s order would not advance the ultimate termination of this litigation. Id.

(“the legislative history of § 1292(b) indicates that [this] section was to be used only in exceptional

situations in which allowing an interlocutory appeal would avoid protracted and expensive litigation.”). 

In fact, an interlocutory appeal would further prevent the prompt and efficient resolution of this case. 

Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal.

2. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)

In accordance with the Court’s January 23, 2012 order, Plaintiff’s claims under the First, Fourth,

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments were dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend. [Doc.

No. 60, at 4.] To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to severe the dismissed claims so that he can

immediately appeal this order, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is the avenue for doing so.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is applicable where the district court has entered a final

decision as to particular claims and/or parties, yet that judgment is not immediately appealable because

other issues in the case remain unresolved. James v. Price Stern Sloan, 283 F.3d 1064, 1068 n.6 (9th

Cir. 2002). “Pursuant to Rule 54(b), the district court may sever this partial judgment for immediate

appeal whenever it determines that there is no just reason for delay.” Id. However, partial “[j]udgment[

] under Rule 54(b) must be reserved for the unusual case in which the costs and risks of multiplying the

number of proceedings and of overcrowding the appellate docket are outbalanced by pressing needs of

the litigants for an early and separate judgment as to some claims or parties.” Morrison-Knudsen Co.,

Inc. v. Archer, 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, Plaintiff’s claims should not be severed so that he may immediately appeal their dismissal. 

This is not an “unusual case.” Id. To the contrary, this Court confronts constitutional challenges to the

medical care provided in prisons similar to the one presented by Plaintiff almost daily. Moreover, the

Court does not find, nor has Plaintiff argued, that there are any pressing needs that require an early and

separate judgment on these claims. Indeed, by entering partial judgment, the Court would only be

3 10cv0706

Case 3:10-cv-00706-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 03/20/12 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

27

28

needlessly multiplying the number of proceedings and would only burden the Ninth Circuit’s already

overcrowded docket. Thus, partial judgment under Rule 54(b) is inappropriate in this case.

B. Request for extension of time to file amended complaint

Plaintiff also requests a 30-day extension of time to file his amended complaint. Plaintiff claims

he needs additional time, because he has limited access to the prison law library and has been working

on his traverse in petition for habeas corpus he has pending. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to

GRANT Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff shall file his amended complaint, in accordance with the Court’s

January 23, 2012 order, on or before April 20, 2012.

C. Service on Defendant Walker

The Court notes, after a review of the docket, that Defendant Walker has not properly been

served. The summons on Defendant Walker was returned unexecuted. [Doc. No. 22.] The docket does

not reflect any other attempts to serve this defendant. Plaintiff is hereby advised that unless he corrects

this deficiency in service, Defendant Walker will be subject to dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(m). See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) (where a pro se plaintiff fails to

provide the Marshal with sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint within

120 days, sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate); see also Rochon v. Dawson,

828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987) (noting that plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to

effectuate such service”; rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate

defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge”). If Plaintiff has

not attempted to remedy this defect in service within 30 days of filing of the amended complaint,

Defendant Walker will be DISMISSED without prejudice, for failure to serve under Rule 4(m).

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

4 10cv0706

Case 3:10-cv-00706-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 03/20/12 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

27

28

D. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s request to appeal, construed by the Court as a request

for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and partial judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b), is

DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file his amended complaint is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff shall file the amended complaint on or before April 20, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 20, 2012

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States District Judge

5 10cv0706

Case 3:10-cv-00706-CAB-BLM Document 64 Filed 03/20/12 Page 5 of 5