Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00590/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00590-3/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

14-CV-590 JLS (JLB)

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

RAUL ARELLANO, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER HODGE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14-CV-590 JLS (JLB)

ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION 

FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

AND (2) DENYING MOTION TO 

AMEND

(ECF No. 119)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Raul Arellano, Jr.’s Motion for Permission to 

Appeal to the Ninth Circuit the Dismissal of Eighth Amendment Claims and Motion to 

Amend Complaint. (“MTN,” ECF No. 119.) Plaintiff seeks permission to appeal the 

Court’s dismissal with prejudice of his Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants 

Glynn, Seeley, and Zamora. (“MTD Order,” ECF No. 116.) Additionally, Plaintiff seeks 

to amend his complaint based on arguments he previously made and on which this Court 

has already ruled. (MTN 2, ECF No. 119 (citing ECF No. 114, at 22, 26).)

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) provides, in pertinent part, that a district judge may certify an 

order for immediate interlocutory appeal if the judge is “of the opinion” that: (1) the order 

“involves a controlling question of law”; (2) there is “substantial ground for difference of 

opinion” as to the resolution of that question; and (3) “an immediate appeal from the order 

Case 3:14-cv-00590-RBM-JLB Document 127 Filed 11/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

14-CV-590 JLS (JLB)

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

may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” See Kaltwasser v. 

AT&T Mobility, 2011 WL 5417085, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2011); In re LDK Solar Sec. 

Litig., 584 F. Supp. 2d 1230, 1258 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Such certification should only be 

granted “in extraordinary cases where decision of an interlocutory appeal might avoid 

protracted and expensive litigation.” U.S. Rubber Co. v. Wright, 359 F.2d 784, 785 (9th 

Cir. 1966). 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any of the requirements of Section 1292(b), and the 

Court cannot find any reason to believe that an immediate appeal would materially advance 

the ultimate termination of the litigation. Instead, it would further delay resolution of this 

case and result in unnecessary trouble and expense. The Court thus finds the circumstances 

presented in this case do not overcome the general policy disfavoring piecemeal appeals, 

and that they do not merit § 1292(b) certification. Accordingly, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s request for interlocutory appeal.

Plaintiff further requests that he be given leave to amend his complaint. (MTN 2, 

ECF No. 119.) Specifically, Plaintiff re-raises his arguments for leave to amend made in 

his objections to Magistrate Judge Jill L. Burkhardt’s R&R. (Id. (citing ECF No. 114, at 

22, 26).) However, the Court already recognized and addressed Plaintiff’s arguments for

leave to amend in its MTD Order. (MTD Order 12 n.3, ECF No. 116 (“Plaintiff also asks 

for leave to add Defendant Zamora’s staff to his complaint. (Objs. 22, ECF No. 114.) To 

the extent this request can be construed as a motion for leave to amend, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s request on the grounds that amendment would be futile for the reasons stated 

above.”) (emphasis removed); id. at 14–15 (“Plaintiff does, however, request both that he 

be given leave to amend his complaint and that the Court send him a copy of his Objections 

(Objs. 26, ECF No. 114) . . . .”).) In the MTD Order, the Court held that “Plaintiff will be 

granted leave to amend his equal protection claims against Defendants Glynn, Seeley, and 

Zamora, but will not be granted leave to amend his Eighth Amendment claims against those 

defendants.” (Id. at 14–15.) Accordingly, because Plaintiff’s present motion to amend 

merely recites his previous arguments for leave to amend—on which this Court has already 

Case 3:14-cv-00590-RBM-JLB Document 127 Filed 11/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

14-CV-590 JLS (JLB)

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

ruled—the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to amend.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for interlocutory 

appeal and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: November 28, 2016

Case 3:14-cv-00590-RBM-JLB Document 127 Filed 11/28/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3