Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01708/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01708-2/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

3:19-cv-01708-WQH-KSC

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

PUNAOFO TSQUITO TILEI,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEP’T OF 

CORRECTION AND 

REHABILITATION; DR. DAVID 

CLAYTON; DR. PEYMAN 

SHAKIBA; DR. SAHA; JASHUA 

N. DOROS; and DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01708-WQH-KSC

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion Stand on His Pleadings and the Request 

for a Final Judgment of Dismiss to Allow for Appeal filed by Plaintiff Punaofo Tsquito 

Tilei. (ECF No. 29).

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 7, 2019, Plaintiff Punaofo Tsquito Tilei, a state prisoner proceeding 

pro se, initiated this action by filing a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

(ECF No. 1). On the same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma 

Pauperis. (ECF No. 2). On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint 

Case 3:19-cv-01708-TWR-KSC Document 36 Filed 05/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:19-cv-01708-WQH-KSC

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

Counsel. (ECF No. 5). On September 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Leave 

to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 7). On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed an 

Emergency Request for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 9). 

On October 17, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s Motions to 

Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF Nos. 2, 7) and denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint 

Counsel (ECF No. 5). (ECF No. 10).

On November 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s 

October 17, 2019 Order denying appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 13). On December 

11, 2019, this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF 

No. 13). (ECF No. 18). 

On February 19, 2020, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s Emergency 

Request for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 9). (ECF No. 25). 

On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion Stand on His Pleadings and a Request 

for a Final Judgment of Dismiss to Allow for Appeal. (ECF No. 29). On March 27, 2020, 

Defendants filed a Response in opposition. (ECF No. 31). On April 13, 2020, Plaintiff 

filed a Reply. (ECF No. 32). 

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

Plaintiff gives notice that he stands on his pleadings regarding his request for counsel 

and his request for an emergency preliminary injunction. Plaintiff requests a final 

judgment of dismissal in order to pursue an appeal. Defendants contend that the dismissal 

of Plaintiff’s claims would constitute an impermissible manipulation of appellate 

jurisdiction. Defendants assert that Plaintiff is free to voluntarily dismiss this action at any 

time. Defendants contend that the Court’s October 17, 2019 Order denying Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 10); December 11, 2019 Order denying Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 18); and February 19, 2020 Order denying Plaintiff’s 

Emergency Request for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 25) are immediately reviewable 

pursuant to interlocutory appeal.

Case 3:19-cv-01708-TWR-KSC Document 36 Filed 05/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:19-cv-01708-WQH-KSC

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

DISCUSSION

“A party may not engage in manipulation either to create appellate jurisdiction or 

prevent it.” Am. States Ins. Co. v. Dastar Corp., 318 F.3d 881, 885 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(citations omitted). “Manipulation of jurisdiction has arisen in several different contexts.” 

Id. For example, parties may “attempt[ ] to create appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory 

orders by provoking the district court to dismiss their actions for failure to prosecute.” Id. 

(citation omitted). “Manipulation is also apparent when the parties agree to waive the 

statute of limitations for dismissed claims.” Id. (citation omitted). “Agreements to dismiss 

claims without prejudice also suggest manipulation.” Id. 

In American States Ins. Co., “both parties ... attempted to create appellate 

jurisdiction through manipulation.” Id. “[T]he record show[ed] that the parties discussed 

their attempts to create appellate jurisdiction.” Id. “A joint status report stated that they 

‘agreed to allow judgment to be entered based on the summary judgment rulings by the 

Court so the duty to defend issue [could] be appealed.’” Id. at 885-86 (alteration in 

original). The Court of Appeals concluded that 

Overall, the parties appear to have colluded to manufacture appellate 

jurisdiction by dismissing their indemnity claims after the district court’s 

grant of partial summary judgment. Moreover, the parties appear ready to 

pursue those claims [re]gardless of the outcome of this appeal, undermining 

the policies upholding the final judgment rule.

Id. at 891.

Plaintiff states that he “stand[s] on [his] pleadings” and “request[s] that the Court 

issue a final judgment of dismissal to allow [him] to pursue an appeal to the United States 

Ninth Circuit Court ....” (ECF No. 29 at 7). The Court concludes that Plaintiff has 

“attempted to create appellate jurisdiction through manipulation.” Am. States Ins. Co., 318 

F.3d at 885. Plaintiff may procced by “(1) dismissing with prejudice the claims on which 

[this Court has] not ruled, or (2) obtaining a Rule 54(b) judgment from [this Court].” Id. 

at 892. 

Case 3:19-cv-01708-TWR-KSC Document 36 Filed 05/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:19-cv-01708-WQH-KSC

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

“As a general rule, appellate jurisdiction is limited to ‘final decisions of the district 

courts of the United States.’” Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 840 F.3d 1098, 

1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “To be immediately appealable, an interlocutory 

order denying counsel to a section 1983 plaintiff under section 1915[] must fit within the 

‘collateral order’ exception to the final judgment rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” Wilborn v. 

Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1330 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). The Court of Appeals 

has held that such orders are “not immediately appealable” “[b]ecause the denial of counsel 

in a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not resolve an important issue 

completely separate from the merits ....” Id. (citations omitted). On October 17, 2019, the 

Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 10). 

Plaintiff is not permitted to appeal the Court’s denial of his Motion to Appoint Counsel 

until a final judgment is entered. See e.g. Arellano v. Blahnik, No. 16-cv-02412-CAB 

(RNB), 2018 WL 4599697, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2018) (“To the extent plaintiff’s is 

requesting permission to appeal to the Ninth Circuit the Court’s denial of his motion for 

appointment of counsel, his request is denied. In Wilborn, 789 F.2d at 1330, the Ninth 

Circuit held that the denial of a § 1983 plaintiff’s request for counsel was not immediately 

appealable as a ‘collateral order’ exception to the final judgment rule of 28 U.S.C. § 

1291.”).

28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) states that 

(a) ... the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from: 

(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States ... granting, 

continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to 

dissolve or modify injunctions, except where a direct review may be had in 

the Supreme Court;

28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The Court of Appeals has “held that when a district court 

‘specifically denie[s] [a] request for an injunction,’ the ‘appeal ... falls squarely within the 

language of section 1292(a)(1).’” Nat. Res. Def. Council, 840 F.3d at 1101 (alterations in 

original) (citation omitted). On February 19, 2020, the Court issued an Order denying 

Case 3:19-cv-01708-TWR-KSC Document 36 Filed 05/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:19-cv-01708-WQH-KSC

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

Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 25). Plaintiff may 

file an interlocutory appeal of this Court’s February 19, 2020 Order as one that “falls 

squarely within the language of section 1292(a)(1).” Nat. Res. Def. Council, 840 F.3d at 

1101 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Stand on His Pleadings and 

Plaintiff’s Request for a Final Judgment of Dismiss to Allow for Appeal (ECF No. 29) is 

DENIED. 

Dated: May 4, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01708-TWR-KSC Document 36 Filed 05/04/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5