NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,

Plaintiff-Petitioner

v.

CSAA INSURANCE GROUP,

Defendant-Respondent

______________________

2021-109

______________________

On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. Section 1292(b) from the United States District 

Court for the District of Nevada in No. 2:20-cv-01558-RFBVCF, Judge Richard F. Boulware, II.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CSAA INSURANCE GROUP,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2021-1610

______________________

Case: 21-109 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 03/29/2021
2 ARUNACHALAM v. CSAA INSURANCE GROUP

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Nevada in No. 2:20-cv-01558-RFB-VCF, Judge 

Richard F. Boulware, II.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

The magistrate judge assigned to Lakshmi Arunachalam’s case in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied her motion for leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP). Dr. Arunachalam asked the magistrate judge to reconsider that ruling (which was later denied), but she never filed an objection with the district 

court. Instead, Dr. Arunachalam filed a petition pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for interlocutory appeal and separately filed a notice of appeal. She also moves for IFP. 

We dismiss both the petition and the appeal. To begin, 

no appeal can be brought under section 1292(b). That section authorizes a court of appeals to permit an appeal of an 

interlocutory order only after the district court has certified 

that the appeal presents a controlling question of law as to 

which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion 

and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. 

And here, no certification was issued by the district court 

that could give rise to such an interlocutory appeal. 

Moreover, while the denial of an IFP motion is ordinarily an immediately appealable ruling, Roberts v. U.S. Dist. 

Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950), our 

jurisdiction is limited to the “final decision of a district 

court,” 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). Here, the IFP orders Dr. 

Case: 21-109 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 03/29/2021
ARUNACHALAM v. CSAA INSURANCE GROUP 3

Arunachalam purports to appeal from are not appealable

orders because they were issued by a magistrate. “The law 

is settled that appellate courts are without jurisdiction to 

hear appeals directly from federal magistrates.” United 

States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 1980). That is 

true even when the orders being appealed from are ones 

denying IFP. See Bryant v. Dekalb Cnty., No. 20-13227-F, 

2020 WL 7023353, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 13, 2020) (dismissing appeal from magistrate’s denial of IFP as non-final).*

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) These matters are dismissed.

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

March 29, 2021 

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s31

* Section 636(c) of title 28 of the U.S. Code provides 

a limited exception to the general rule of no direct appealability, stating, in relevant part, that “[u]pon the consent 

of the parties,” the magistrate judge may “order the entry 

of judgment in the case, when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court.” § 636(c)(1). 

That exception, however, is not applicable to this matter. 

Case: 21-109 Document: 4 Page: 3 Filed: 03/29/2021