Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02340/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02340-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS

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

JEHAN ZEB MIR,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS

ORDER 

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN 

ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS 

AND AMEND ORDER GRANTING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(2) DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

[ECF Nos. 292, 294.]

On October 17, 2017, Plaintiff Dr. Jehan Zeb Mir filed a Notice and Ex-Parte 

Application for an Order to Stay Proceedings and Amend Order Granting Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment Or In Alternative Summary Adjudication and Denying 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to Certify for Discretionary Appeal. Dkt. No. 

292. On October 17, 2017 Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Change of Venue. Dkt. No. 

Case 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS Document 295 Filed 10/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS

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

294. On September 26, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment1and denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 288. 

I. EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND AMEND 

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Plaintiff contends that the Court’s Dkt. No. 288 order granting Defendant’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment does not dispose of all issues raised in the Fourth Amended 

Complaint. In its June 8, 2016 Order dismissing Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint 

the Court held that:

The Court previously determined that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim 

for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment under Section 1983 against 

Defendants Kirchmeyer and Levine to survive a motion to dismiss. (See ECF 

No. 59 at 11–16.) Thus, what remains is Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim for 

prospective relief (as defined above) against Defendants Kirchmeyer and 

Levine in their official capacities only.

Dkt. No. 169 at 39. Accordingly, the sole remaining issue for the Court to address 

in its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was Plaintiff’s 

Section 1983 due process claim. Because the Court granted summary judgment as 

to Defendants on this claim, there is no remaining issue in this case. The Clerk 

correctly issued a judgment on September 26, 2017. Dkt. No. 289. 

Plaintiff appears to request that the Court certify an interlocutory appeal 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) by asking the Court to “include a statement that 

the order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial 

 

1 While Defendants’ motion was titled “Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary 

Adjudication of the Issues,” the Court’s order was not a partial grant of summary judgment (summary 

adjudication), but rather a grant of summary judgment in its entirety as to all remaining issues in the 

case. 

Case 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS Document 295 Filed 10/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS

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

ground for a difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal may materially 

advance ultimate termination of litigation.” Dkt. No. 292. Because the Court has 

issued a final judgment in this case, Plaintiff’s request for the court to certify an 

interlocutory appeal is moot because he may seek an appeal to the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (“The courts of appeals . . . shall have 

jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United 

States”).2 Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to certify an 

interlocutory appeal. 

Further, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request to stay the proceedings 

because a final judgment has issued, the case has been closed, and there is no basis 

to stay further proceedings in this matter.

Accordingly, the Court will DENY Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for an Order 

Staying Proceeding and to Amend Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment. 

II. MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

Plaintiff seeks to transfer his case under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) from the Southern 

District of California to the Central District of California on the basis of inconvenience to 

the parties, expenditure of time, delay in filing documents, and convenience to witnesses. 

Dkt. No. 294. As stated above, a judgment has been issued in this case and the case is 

currently closed. Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal and consequently his appeal is 

currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. No. 290. Accordingly, the Court will 

DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue. If Dr. Mir’s 

appeal to the Ninth Circuit is successful, he may re-file the Motion for Change of Venue 

after the conclusion of his appeal. 

 

2 Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on October 16, 2017. Dkt No. 290. 

Case 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS Document 295 Filed 10/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS

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

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court will (1) DENY Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application for an Order 

Staying Proceeding and to Amend Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment and (2) DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of 

Venue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 18, 2017

Case 3:12-cv-02340-GPC-AGS Document 295 Filed 10/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4