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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS A. HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0887 GEB GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On April 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the March 30, 2005, order

dismissing the following claims contained in his September 2, 2004, amended complaint: 1)

plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against defendant Sainz

(¶ 30); 2) defendants Douglas and Smith violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments and state

law (¶ 31); 3) defendants Hodges-Wilkins, Alameida, Schwarzenneger and Rianda violated the

First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and state law (¶ 32); 4) defendants Sainz and Nelson

violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments and state law (¶ 34); 5) defendants

Schwarzenegger, Alameida, Hodges-Wilkins and Rianda admitted liability (¶ 35); 6) defendants

Bulanon and Douglas violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments and state law (¶ 36); 7)

defendant Douglas violated the Fourteenth Amendment and state law (¶ 37); 8) defendants

Williams and Sainz retaliated against plaintiff and violated the Eighth Amendment (¶ 37); 9)

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 34 Filed 05/19/05 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

2

defendant Knowles did not adequately respond to his administrative appeals (¶ 37); 10)

defendants Knowles, Reyes, Rianda, Manuel, Hansen, Grannis, Alameida, Schwarzenegger

retaliated against plaintiff, violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment and state law (¶ 38);

11) the conditions at SATF are unconstitutional (¶ 38); 12) defendants Burton and Allen violated

the First, Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments (¶ 39); 13) defendant Peneta violated the

Fourteenth Amendment and state law (¶ 40); 14) defendant Jiminez violated plaintiff’s

constitutional rights (¶ 41); 15) defendant Givens violated the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments as well as state law (¶ 42); 16) defendant Todd violated the Fourteenth Amendment

and state law (¶ 43); 17) defendant Smith violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights (¶ 43).

The court ordered service of the remaining claims in plaintiff’s amended

complaint.

On April 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for certification of his appeal pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) which provides, in relevant part, 

When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise 

appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves 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, he shall so state in writing in such order.

The order plaintiff appeals does not involve a controlling question of law as to

which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 22, 2005, request

for certification of his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is denied.

DATED: 5/19/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

high887.app

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 34 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 2