Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06496/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-06496-4/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

Although plaintiff’s motion refers to documents no. 70, 90, 1

120 and 143 as “orders”, these documents are defendant’s motions.

Doc. No. 109 is the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations

regarding the motions filed as Docs. 70 and 90, which recommended

that these defense motions be denied. This court adopted these

findings and recommendations by Order filed on February 8, 2005 as

Doc. 158. Therefore, there is no basis for plaintiff to appeal to

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY BUFORD, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

DR. VANG, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

NO. CV-F-00-6496 REC/SMS P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR

APPLICATION FOR A RULE 54(b)

ORDER (Doc. 169) AND DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND FOR

APPLICATION OF 28 U.S.C.

1292(b) RULING AND/OR

APPLICATION OF COLLATERAL

ORDER (Doc. 170)

On June 8, 2005, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Permission to

File a Late Notice of Appeal for Order(s) (Docs. 70, 90, 109,

120, 134 and 143) Due to Change of Address and Ineffective

Service of Orders.” (Doc. 167).1

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 181 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 4
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

Docs. 70 and 90 or Doc. 109. It is apparent from the docket that

plaintiff actually was seeking leave to file a late notice of

appeal of this court’s Order filed as Doc. 158. Doc. 134 is an

order resolving various discovery matters. Plaintiff sought

reconsideration of these rulings, which motion for reconsideration

was denied by the court on February 8, 2005 as Doc. 159. 

Therefore, the court concludes that plaintiff’s motion intended to

seek leave to file a late notice of appeal in connection with Docs.

158 and 159.

2

By Order filed on June 14, 2005, the United States

Magistrate Judge denied this motion. (Doc. 168)

On June 24, 2005, plaintiff filed a “Supplemental Motion ...

for Permission to File a Late Notice of Appeal for Orders (Docs.

70, 90, 109, 120, 134 and 143) and Application for a Rule 54(b)

Order.” (Doc. 169). 

On July 5, 2005, plaintiff timely filed a “Motion for

Reconsideration and For Application of 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) Ruling

and/or Application of Collateral Order.” By this motion,

plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the June 14, 2005 Order

denying plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a

late appeal. 

The court denies plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 

The Order of the Magistrate Judge is neither clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.

The court also concludes that the rulings plaintiff seeks to

appeal are not subject to the collateral order doctrine. The

Order filed on February 8, 2005 as Doc. 158 ordered that the

Magistrate Judge issue an order to show cause why plaintiff

should not be sanctioned for the bad faith conduct described in

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 181 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 4
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

the findings and recommendation filed as Doc. 109. The Order

filed on February 8, 2005 as Doc. 160 denied plaintiff’s request

for reconsideration (Doc. 120) of a sanction order. Sanction

orders are not immediately appealable under the collateral order

doctrine. See Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198

(1999); Cato v. Fresno County, 220 F.3d 1073 (9 Cir. 2000). th

The court’s Order filed on February 8, 2005 as Doc. 159 denied

reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s rulings issued on

September 15, 2004 as Doc. 134 denying plaintiff’s request for

relief from the limitation on interrogatories set forth in Rule

33(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In view of the strong

policy against piecemeal appeals, interlocutory review of

discovery orders is highly disfavored. United States v. Nixon,

418 U.S. 683, 690-691 (1974). Discovery orders are not final

appealable orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and courts have refused

interlocutory review of such orders under the collateral order

doctrine. In United States v. Zone, 403 F.3d 1101, 1106-1107

(9 Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit holds that interlocutory th

appeals are appropriate for those discovery requests that seek

information to establish that a statutory or constitutional right

not to be tried. Here, plaintiff’s discovery requests do not

meet this criteria and, therefore, the collateral order doctrine

is inapplicable.

The court also denies plaintiff’s request to certify these

orders for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b), Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court concludes

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 181 Filed 08/16/05 Page 3 of 4
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

that plaintiff has not made the showing required for

certification of these rulings for immediate appeal under either 

Rule 54(b) or Section 1292(b). 

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Plaintiff’s “Supplemental Motion ... for Permission to

File a Late Notice of Appeal for Orders (Docs. 70, 90, 109, 120,

134 and 143) and Application for a Rule 54(b) Order” is denied.

2. Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration and For

Application of 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) Ruling and/or Application of

Collateral Order” is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-06496-LJO -SMS Document 181 Filed 08/16/05 Page 4 of 4