Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08013/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08013-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Peter Michael Palmer, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Prescott, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8013-PCT-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff seeks the right to pursue an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

Doc. 49. A district court may certify an issue for interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b) only

when (1) there is a “controlling question of law,” (2) on which there are “substantial grounds

for difference of opinion,” and (3) “an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate

termination of the litigation.” In re Cement Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir.

1982)). “All three requirements must be met for certification to issue under that statute.”

Best Western Int’l, Inc. v. Govan, No. CIV 05-3247-PHX-RCB, 2007 WL 1545776, at *3 (D.

Ariz. May 29, 2007) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). 

Plaintiff has identified no controlling question of law he seeks to appeal, much less

one on which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion. The Ninth Circuit has

made clear that a § 1292(b) appeal is warranted only when the question is one of law – not

fact, and not the application of law to fact – and only when that question clearly is unsettled

in the courts: “To determine if a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists under

§ 1292(b), courts must examine to what extent the controlling law is unclear. Courts

Case 3:10-cv-08013-DGC Document 49 Filed 11/09/10 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 -

traditionally will find that a substantial ground for difference of opinion exists where the

circuits are in dispute on the question and the court of appeals of the circuit has not spoken

on the point, if complicated questions arise under foreign law, or if novel and difficult

questions of first impression are presented.” Couch v. Telescope, Inc., 611 F.3d 629, 633

(9th Cir. 2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Plaintiff’s concern in this case is not with the principles of law that control motions

to disqualify under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455, but with how the Court has applied those wellsettled principles to the facts of this case. That concern does not amount to a controlling

question of law. Plaintiff clearly disagrees with the Court’s decisions, but that disagreement

does not create a question of law. “[A] party’ strong disagreement with the Court’s ruling

is not sufficient for there to be a substantial ground for difference” on a controlling question

of law. Couch, 611 F.3d at 633. 

Because § 1292(b) is a departure from the normal rule that only final judgments are

appealable, the statute “must be construed narrowly,” James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283

F.3d 1064, 1067 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002), and “applied sparingly and only in exceptional cases,”

United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784, 788 n.11 (9th Cir. 1959). Plaintiff has not shown

that this is one of the rare cases appropriate for interlocutory appeal under § 1292(b).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Interlocutory Appeal (Doc. 48)

is denied.

DATED this 9th day of November, 2010.

Case 3:10-cv-08013-DGC Document 49 Filed 11/09/10 Page 2 of 2