Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01290/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01290-9/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 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS ENGRAHM, )

) 02:04-cv-1290-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER*

v. )

)

COUNTY OF COLUSA, COUNTY OF COLUSA )

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, JOHN )

S. WRYSINSKI, individually and in )

his capacity as Director of County )

of Colusa Dept. of Public Works, )

DONALD F. STANTON, individually )

and in his capacity as legal )

counsel to County of Colusa, DAVID )

J. Shoemaker, individually and in )

his capacity as CAO/Personnel )

Director of Colusa County Dept. of )

Public Works, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On January 30, 2006, Defendants John S. Wrysinski, Donald F.

Stanton, and David J. Shoemaker (collectively “Defendants”) moved for

an order staying these proceedings until the Ninth Circuit decides

their appeal. The motion concerns Defendants’ Notice of Appeal filed

January 13, 2006, in which they challenge this Court’s denial of their

motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue that because their

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 132 Filed 02/23/06 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

motion for summary judgment included a claim of qualified immunity,

the denial of their summary judgment motion and subsequent appeal

result in an automatic stay under Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104 (9th

Cir. 1992).

Defendants’ argument fails because this Court did not

“arrive at a final, appealable decision on [whether Defendants are

entitled to] qualified immunity.” Way v. County of Ventura, 348 F.3d

808, 810 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was

denied because Defendants failed to comply with Local Rule 56-260(a)’s

requirement that motions for summary judgment be accompanied by a

statement of undisputed facts; and Defendants’ request to file another

motion for summary judgment was denied because Defendants’ failed to

satisfy Rule 16's good cause standard when seeking to modify the law

and motion deadline set by the Rule 16 Scheduling Order. Neither

denial involves the type of decision that is subject to an

interlocutory appeal. Therefore, Defendants’ interlocutory appeal is

frivolous, and their stay motion is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01290-GEB-GGH Document 132 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 2