Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02122/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02122-6/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 

19cv2122-MMA-WVG

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

WILLIAM DAWES,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19cv2122-MMA-WVG

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO APPEAL STAY

ORDER

[Doc. No. 52]

Plaintiff William Dawes, a California inmate proceeding pro se, brings this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Bravo, Gene, Ugalde, 

Ausbury, Silva, Shellano, Ayala, Solis, and Zuniga. See Doc. No. 13. The parties 

previously moved to stay these proceedings for a period of four months pending the 

outcome of related criminal proceedings in state court. See Doc. No. 44; see also S.D. 

Sup. Ct. No. SCS287189. The Court granted the motion. See Doc. No. 46. Thereafter, 

Defendants filed a Status Report advising the Court that due to developments in 

Plaintiff’s pending criminal proceedings, including issues regarding Plaintiff’s 

competency, a further stay was warranted. See Doc. No. 49. The Court agreed and 

ordered this action stayed through February 18, 2022. See Doc. No. 50 (“Order”). 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 53 Filed 07/20/21 PageID.<pageID>

Page 1 of 2
2 

19cv2122-MMA-WVG

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 now moves “to appeal the stay order.”1 See Doc. No. 52. However, “the 

usual rule [is] that a stay is not ordinarily a final [appealable] decision for purposes of [28 

U.S.C.] § 1291, since most stays do not put the plaintiff effectively out of court.” Moses 

H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 10 n.11 (1983) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Such is the case here as proceedings will resume after the 

temporary stay has expired. As such, Plaintiff has not been put “out of court.” The Order

is also not appealable under the collateral-order exception to section 1291’s finality

requirement. “To come within the ‘small class’ of decisions excepted from the finaljudgment rule. . ., the order must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an 

important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively 

unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 

U.S. 463, 468 (1978) (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 

546 (1949)). The Order does not satisfy these criteria. 

Nor is the Order appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Even if the Court 

liberally construes Plaintiff’s submission as requesting certification of the Order for 

interlocutory appeal, the Court may do so only if: (1) a “controlling question of law” is 

involved; (2) “substantial ground for difference of opinion” on the issue exists; and (3) an 

interlocutory appeal will “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” 

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). These requirements are jurisdictional and none of them have been 

met here. Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to appeal the stay order 

previously issued in this case. This action remains stayed through February 18, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: July 20, 2021 _____________________________________

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO

 United States District Judge

1

 Although Plaintiff’s submission is barely legible, the Court has endeavored to construe it liberally 

considering Plaintiff’s pro se status. 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 53 Filed 07/20/21 PageID.<pageID>

Page 2 of 2