Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01613/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01613-3/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 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Demetrius Antwan Wilson,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-01613-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Demetrius Wilson’s Motion to Transfer to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 109). The Court now rules on the motion. 

I. Background

 Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee who was booked into the Fourth Avenue Jail in 

Phoenix, Arizona on May 13, 2014, under booking number T079391. (Doc. 115 at 2). On 

July 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants violated 

his civil rights. (Doc. 1 at 1). Plaintiff amended his complaint on November 20, 2014. 

(Doc. 9). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have violated his Eighth and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights by improperly treating his colostomy and by not providing adequate 

medical and sanitation supplies. (Doc. 23, Ex. 2 at 3-12A). 

 On October 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed an interlocutory notice of appeal, (Doc. 121), 

challenging three separate orders of this Court issued on June 30, 2015, (Doc. 64), 

August 11, 2015, (Doc. 93), and September 9, 2015, (Doc. 104). The Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals limited review to the September 9, 2015 order. (Doc. 130 at 1). Plaintiff 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 133 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

requests that his case be transferred to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 109 at 1). 

II. Analysis

 Plaintiff appears to request that his case be transferred to the Ninth Circuit to be 

tried there. (Id.) For the sake of clarity, the Court will discuss this motion as both a 

request to transfer to the Ninth Circuit and as a request to take an interlocutory appeal. 

A. Transfer 

 Plaintiff asks to “[m]ove case to the Court of Appeals [f]or the bias in the above 

case and to take [j]urisdiction [f]or the deprivation of Plaintiff[’s] Constitution[al] rights.” 

(Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants and the Court denied Plaintiff a jury trial and forced 

him into a deposition, which prejudiced both his pending criminal case and this civil 

claim. (Id. at 3). Plaintiff further contends that the “Courts are taking advantage of 

violating [sic] Plaintiff[’s] Constitutional rights.” (Id. at 4). Finally, Plaintiff asserts that 

under “Color of law[,] any official or employee that know or reasonable Should know 

that that a Constitutional right has be Violated and do not reacted on it will be held liable 

[sic throughout].” (Id.) It appears Plaintiff is arguing that the Court’s rulings against 

Plaintiff are evidence of bias and that the only way “[j]ustice can be serve[d]” is through 

transfer to the Ninth Circuit. (Id.) 

 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is a court of limited jurisdiction, and its 

jurisdiction is purely statutory. Young Properties Corp. v. United Equity Corp., 534 F.2d 

847, 849 (9th Cir. 1976). The Courts of Appeals “shall have jurisdiction of appeals from 

all final decisions of the district courts of the United States, . . . except where a direct 

review may be had in the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Additionally, the Courts of 

Appeals have jurisdiction over interlocutory decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 and over 

certain agency actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1296. The jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeals 

is purely and exclusively appellate. Pollard v. Sup. Ct. for State of Mich., 334 F.2d 129, 

130 (6th Cir. 1964). 

 There is simply no precedent or procedural mechanism for transferring an entire 

pending case from a district court to a Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit “possesses 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 133 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

only such jurisdiction as Congress chooses to confer.” Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. 

Co. v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 102 F.3d 425, 427 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations 

omitted). Congress has primarily limited this jurisdiction to appeals from final decisions 

of district courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As the Court has yet to issue a final decision, the 

Court is unable to grant Plaintiff’s motion. 

B. Interlocutory Appeal 

 Plaintiff alleges that several of the Court’s orders were in error, including the 

Court’s orders of June 30, 2015, (Doc. 64), and of August 11, 2015, (Doc. 93). (Doc. 109 

at 1). Plaintiff contends that the Court failed to rule on his Motion to Supplement 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, (Doc. 62). (Doc. 109 at 1). Plaintiff further 

asserts the Court erred by finding that Plaintiff stated a valid claim for injunctive relief, 

but then later denying the injunction. (Id.) 

 The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal 

[w]hen a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise 

appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such 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, [and the judge] so state[s] in writing in such order. 

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over appeals from 

orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1292(a)(1). 

 To the extent Plaintiff’s motion can be interpreted to request an interlocutory 

appeal, it is redundant. On October 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed an interlocutory notice of 

appeal addressing these same orders. (Doc. 121). The Ninth Circuit has previously denied 

Plaintiff’s interlocutory request regarding the Court’s orders of June 30, 2015, (Doc. 64), 

and of August 11, 2015, (Doc. 93). (Doc. 130 at 1). Thus, the Court denies Plaintiff’s 

Motion. 

III. Conclusion

 For the foregoing reasons, 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 133 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

27 

28 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer (Doc. 109) is DENIED. 

 Dated this 30th day of October, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-01613-JAT-DMF Document 133 Filed 11/02/15 Page 4 of 4