N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. AM M O N B UNDY; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. No. 16-30080

D.C . No. 3:16-c r-00051-B R
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm i tte d June 16, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , TASHIM A, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nts a ppe a l inte rloc utorily

from the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing the i r m otion to prohibit their tra nsporta t ion for twe lve da

y s, pursua

n t to writs of ha be a s c orpus a d p rose que ndum , for a rra ignm e n t on sepa

ra te c h arge s in the Distric t of Ne va d a . As the pa rtie s a re fam i lia r with thefa c ts, we do not re c o unt



# FIL ED JUN 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.the m

he re . W e dism iss thea

ppe a l for la c k of a

ppe lla te jurisdic t ion, a

nd de ny the pe tition for writ of m

a nda m us. Although this c ourt’ s jurisdic tion is ty p ic a l ly lim ite d to fina l de c isions of the distric t c o urt, de fe nda

nts a rgue that we have jurisdic tion ove r this interloc utory
a ppe a l unde r the c olla

te ra l orde r doc trine
. Unde r the c olla te ra l orde r doc trine , a non-fina l orde r is a

ppe a la ble if it: (1) “ c onc lusive ly de te rm ine [s] the dispute d que stion” ; (2) “ re s olve [s] an im porta nt issuec om

ple te ly se p ara te from

the m e rits of the a c tion” ; a

nd (3) is “ e ffe c tive ly

unre vie wa

ble on a ppe a l from a

fina l judgm e nt.” Unite d State

s v . Rome ro-Oc hoa , 554 F.3d 833, 836 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ita tion omitte d). Eve n if de fe nda

nts c an sa tisfy the first two prongs, the

y fa il to sa tisfy the third. W he the r de fe nda

nts ha ve suffe re d a

ny pre judic e a s a

re sult of dual prose c utions c an be re vie we d on dire c t a ppe a l from

a c onvic tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Tillman , 756 F.3d 1144, 1149-50 (9th C ir. 2014) (holding tha t a n orde r disqua lify ing de fe nse c ounse l wa s not im m e diat e ly a p pe a la ble be c a use its va lidity
m ay be a ddre sse d through “ a

dire c t a ppe a l, if the re is one ” ); U nite d State

s v . Me h rmane

s h , 652 F.2d 766, 770 (9th C ir. 1981) (holding tha t a n orde r de ny ing a
m otion to dism

iss for viola

tion of theSpe e dy

Tria l Ac t wa s not im

m e d iate ly
a ppe a la ble be c a use “ [t] hose rights c an still be vindic ate d by a

ppe a l a fte r tria l or, 2whe n a

n indisputa

ble m athe m at ic a l e rror or a truly e gre gious de la

y ha s oc c urre d, by m anda m us be fore tria l” ). The re fore , we dism iss de fe n da n t s’ inte rloc utory
a ppe a l for la c k of a

ppe lla te jurisdic tion. W e a lso de c line to gra

nt de fe nda

nts’ a lte rnative re que st for m anda m us re lie f. M an dam us re lie f is a

n “ e xtra ordina

ry re m e dy ” whic h is only

justifie d in

“ e x c e ptiona l c irc um sta

nc e s a m o unting to a

judic ia l usurpa

tion of powe r.” Rome ro-Oc hoa , 554 F.3d a t 839 (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). At this time , the sta

n d ard for m anda

m us re lie f ha s not be e n m e t. Se e id
. (se tting forth guiding princ iple s to de t e rm ine whe the r to gra nt a m anda m us pe tition). Appe a l DISM ISSE D, pe tition DE N IE D
.

3