Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02520/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02520-44/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY KNAPP, No. CIV S-05-2520-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

RODERICK HICKMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s request for an order certifying this

case for an immediate interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) or Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 54(b). 

Plaintiff seeks such an order in order to immediately appeal this court’s March 12,

2008, order adopting the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge filed February

21, 2008. Pursuant to that order, this court granted the defendants’ motions to strike in part,

found some of plaintiff’s claims were time-barred, some of plaintiff’s claims failed to state

stand-alone constitutional claims, and dismissed several defendants. However, plaintiff’s case

continues against several defendants on his retaliation claims. 

Case 2:05-cv-02520-KJM-CMK Document 158 Filed 04/02/08 Page 1 of 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

2

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) allows a district judge to certify an issue for an interlocutory

appeal if an order has issued which “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.” There must be a genuine doubt as

to the correct legal standard used in the order for the order to be granted certification under §

1292(b). 

Rule 54(b) allows the court to enter final judgment as to one or more claims or

parties “only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise,

any order or other decision . . . that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or . . . parties does not

end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry

of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.” 

Rule 54(b) provides an exception to the general principle that a final judgment is

proper only after the rights and liabilities of all the parties to the action have been adjudicated. 

Deciding the appropriate time for a final appealable decision is left to the sound judicial

discretion of the district court. See Curtis-Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8

(1980). Historically, federal law expresses policy against piecemeal appeals. See Switzerland

Cheese Ass’n, Inc. v E. Horne’s Market, Inc., 385 U.S. 23, 24 (1966), Sears, Roebuck & Co. v.

Mackey, 351 U.S. 427, 438 (1956). Rule 54(b) certification should be reserved for “the

infrequent harsh case because of the overload in appellate courts which would otherwise result

from appeals of an interlocutory nature.” Curtis-Wright, 446 U.S. at 5-6. 

Here, the court finds no sound reason to certify this case for an interlocutory

appeal under either Rule 54(b) or § 1292(b). The facts underlying all of the claims are related,

and the claims against the defendants who have been dismissed are the same or similar to

plaintiff’s remaining claims. There is no substantial ground for any difference of opinion as to

the correct legal standard used in dismissing those defendants. Plaintiff’s opinion that the

/ / /

Case 2:05-cv-02520-KJM-CMK Document 158 Filed 04/02/08 Page 2 of 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

3

decision was wrong is not sufficient. Therefore, the court finds no certificate should issue

certifying this case for an interlocutory appeal, and plaintiff’s request for such a certificate is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 1, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-02520-KJM-CMK Document 158 Filed 04/02/08 Page 3 of 3