IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

ALEKSANDER SKARZYNSKI, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 ) NO. 2:14-CV-388

vs. )

 )

COMMUNITY CARE NETWORK, INC. et al.,)

 )

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Allow Appeal,

filed on July 28, 2017 and Motion to Allow Appeal No. 2, filed on

August 11, 2017. (DE ## 43 and 48). For the reasons set forth

below, the motions are DENIED. 

The instant motions seek permission to appeal prior to entry

of a final judgment, otherwise known as an interlocutory appeal. 

Interlocutory appeals are governed by Title 28 U.S.C. section

1292(b), which provides:

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.

An interlocutory appeal is available only when: “(1) the

appeal presents a question of law; (2) it is controlling; (3) it is
contestable; (4) its resolution will expedite the resolution of the

litigation; and (5) the petition to appeal is filed in the district

court within a reasonable amount of time after entry of the order

sought to be appealed.” Boim v. Quranic Literacy Inst., 291 F.3d

1000, 1007 (7th Cir. 2002).

Certificates of appealability under this section are generally

disfavored because they "frequently cause unnecessary delays in

lower court proceedings and waste the resources of an already

overburdened judicial system.” Herdrich v. Pegram, 154 F.3d 362,

368 (7th Cir. 1998), rev’d on other grounds, 530 U.S. 211 (2000). 

Thus, the party seeking an interlocutory appeal must show that

“exceptional circumstances justify the departure from the basic

policy of postponing appellate review until after the entry of a

final judgment.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 475

(1978). Therefore, “the preferred practice is to defer appellate

review until the entry of a final judgment....” Herdrich, 154 F.3d

at 368.

Skarzynski seeks to appeal several orders. (DE ## 8, 27, 30,

38, 42, and 47). As to each of these orders, Skarzynski has failed

to meet his burden of showing that exceptional circumstances

justify departure from this Circuit’s general policy of postponing

appellate review until after the entry of final judgment. See

Ahrenholz v. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ill., 219 F.3d 674. 676

(7th Cir. 2000)(“Unless all the[] criteria are satisfied, the

2
district court may not and should not certify its order to us for

an immediate appeal under section 1292(b).”). Accordingly, this

Court exercises its discretion to deny the requests for

interlocutory appeal. See Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514

U.S. 35, 47 (1995)(“Congress thus chose to confer on district

courts first line discretion to allow interlocutory appeals.”);

Kuzinski v. Schering Corp., 614 F.Supp.2d 247, 249 (D. Conn.

2009)(“Even where [the criteria for an interlocutory appeal] are

met, the Court retains discretion to deny permission for

interlocutory appeal.”). 

For these reasons, the Motion to Allow Appeal and Motion to

Allow Appeal No. 2 (DE ## 43 and 48) are DENIED. 

DATED: September 11, 2017 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

 

3