Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02628/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-02628-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAQ BEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JARED MALEC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-02626-SI ; 18-cv-2628- SI

ORDER DENYING IFP ON APPEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 56, 57; 74, 75

On December 31, 2018 and January 2, 2019, plaintiff Raq Bey filed four motions for leave 

to appeal in forma pauperis. See Dkt. Nos. 56, 57 in 18-2626; and 74, 75 in 18-2628. In both cases, 

plaintiff attempts to appeal this Court’s November 29, 2018 Order Granting in part and Denying in 

Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 49; 67), and this Court’s December 11, 2018 Order 

Denying a Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 52; 70). Plaintiff has since filed an amended 

complaint in 18-2626 (Dkt. No. 58). 

 On January 22, 2019, the Ninth Circuit dismissed plaintiff’s appeal in 18-2628 for lack of 

jurisdiction, noting that, “this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the orders challenged 

in the appeal are not final or appealable.” Dkt. No. 76; See 28 U.S. C. §1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 

Following the Ninth Circuit’s guidance, as there are no factual discrepancies between the pending 

applications, and because final judgment has not been entered in either case, plaintiff’s motions for 

leave to appeal in forma pauperis are DENIED at this time. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-02628-SI Document 77 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 1