Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01898/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01898-21/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 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES T. DAVIS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

D.L. RUNNELS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:05-cv-1898-JAM-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. In “objections” filed May 2, 2014, he requests that the court certify for 

interlocutory appeal the magistrate judge’s January 2, 2014 order denying his request for 

appointment of counsel. 

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) permits a district court to certify an order for interlocutory appellate 

review where the order involves (1) “a controlling question of law,” (2) “as to which there is 

substantial ground for difference of opinion,” and (3) where “an immediate appeal from the order 

may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” “[T]he party pursuing the 

interlocutory appeal bears the burden of . . . demonstrating” that all three requirements have been 

met. Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010). Section 1292(b) is “to be used 

only in exceptional situations in which allowing an interlocutory appeal would avoid protracted 

and expensive litigation.” In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982). 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JAM-EFB Document 128 Filed 06/05/14 Page 1 of 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 

2

Plaintiff’s request to certify the order for interlocutory appeal is denied because the 

requirements set forth in § 1292(b) have not been met. 

 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s “objections,” construed as a motion 

for certification of interlocutory appeal (ECF No. 126), is denied. 

DATED: June 4, 2014 

 /s/ John A. Mendez__________________________ 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 

Case 2:05-cv-01898-JAM-EFB Document 128 Filed 06/05/14 Page 2 of 2