Source: https://boards.answers.findlaw.com/topic/240196-add/page/2/?tab=comments
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:28:28+00:00

Document:
The term “issues are before the court” simply means that they under consideration by the court. It does not mean that the court has completed its deliberation on the case and has an opinion and order ready to issue.
My appeal from denial from amended complaint was recently dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Bridges v. Dep’t of Maryland State Police, 441 F.3d 197, 206 (4th Cir. 2006) The 4th Circuit ruled that "A denial of a motion to amend a complaint is not a final order, nor is it an appealable interlocutory or collateral order."
The problem is that this case is not analogous to mine for example it involved adding new (non party) plaintiffs to a class action which was not properly certified for appeal, where the original plaintiffs that were proper plaintiffs the case did not appeal. The 4th Circuit ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal. See id 441 F.3d at 206.
In my case this not a class action, a timely appeal was filed, the parties sought to be added as well as added counts and claims met all the criteria under Rule 15 and Rule 8(a) of the Fed R, Civ. Proc.
Moreover, I believe the case cited is not a controlling case from that Circuit . . .
But those differences did not affect the rule stated by the court: a denial of a motion or leave to amend is not a final order and therefore is not subject to appeal unless it qualifies for interlocutory appeal, and it most cases it doesn't qualify for that either. For that reason I was suprised you made the appeal on that when, as I understood it, there was not yet a final order disposing of the case. As for your statement that the case cited is not a “controlling case” from that circuit, what leads you to that conclusion? It is a published opinion and has not been reversed, overruled, superceded, or abrogated by any later opinion of the court.
Alani Olusegun Arawole appeals the district court order denying his motion for leave to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000) motion and the amended § 2255 motion. Arawole has also filed a motion to stay district court proceedings pending the outcome of this appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the court's order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). An order denying a motion for leave to amend the § 2255 motion and the amended § 2255 motion is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order.
We deny a certificate of appealability, dismiss the appeal as interlocutory, and deny the motion to stay as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
United States v. Arawole, 16 F. App'x 193, 193 (4th Cir. 2001). That was the entire opinion. The fact that the court dispensed with it in such a summary fashion indicates that this is a pretty well established rule that needed no extensive discussion.
Appeals may be taken to this court only from final decisions, subject to certain exceptions carefully enunciated in the statutes, court rules, and cases construing them. See 28 U.S.C. ss 1291-92 (1970); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54. Denial of leave to amend pleadings is ordinarily not final for purposes of appeal. See, e. g., Horner v. Ferron, 362 F.2d 224, 230 (9th Cir. 1966); DeNubilo v. United States, 343 F.2d 455, 456-57 (2d Cir. 1965); cf. Jones v. Diamond, 519 F.2d 1090, 1095 (5th Cir. 1975). The right which Wells seeks to assert is neither separable from and collateral to the rights asserted in his suit against South Main Bank nor so independent of the main cause of action as to require immediate appellate treatment. Therefore, the exception to the finality rule enunciated in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949) is not applicable.
Wells v. S. Main Bank, 532 F.2d 1005, 1006 (5th Cir. 1976). You will note that the court cites decisions of other circuits as well.
There are limited circumstances in which a denial of motion for leave to amend may be appealed, such as when that issue is “inextricably intertwined” with another issue that does qualify for interlocutory appeal. See e.g. Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 733 F.3d 105, 111 (4th Cir. 2013). Those are not all that common, and unless you showed the court one of those limited circumstances applied in your case it was going to do as it did and deny the appeal as premature.
We told you months ago it was going to be denied because you didn't get the trial court's permission to appeal the order as required.
But those differences did not affect the rule stated by the court: a denial of a motion or leave to amend is not a final order and therefore is not subject to appeal unless it qualifies for interlocutory appeal, and it most cases it doesn't qualify for that either.
For that reason I was suprised you made the appeal on that when, as I understood it, there was not yet a final order disposing of the case. As for your statement that the case cited is not a “controlling case” from that circuit, what leads you to that conclusion? It is a published opinion and has not been reversed, overruled, superceded, or abrogated by any later opinion of the court.
I took appeal from the denial of amendment of complaint because I was concerned that the statue of limitations (SOL) would have barred my claims against the agency and other defendants. Which the case in Bridges addressed at pp 441 F. 3d 197 at 204, 205. I understand that SOL is tolled as an equitable matter in certain circumstances, such fraudulent concealment, evasion, not being present in the particular state where the action-claims occurred or any other circumstances to no fault of the plaintiff the action was attempted but could not be maintain. . . . . is this true or am I partially correct, or on the right track.. .
The statute of limitations sets the time in which you must file the complaint. You filed the FOIA complaint timely, evidently, or the complaint would have been dismissed on SOL grounds. You no longer have an SOL issue unless the court now dismisses the entire case and does so without prejudice, in which case if you wanted to refile you would have to deal with the SOL. It is true that certain things do toll the SOL, but I’m not sure that is really what you wanted to know. In any event, the dismissal of the case, should it occur, may well be with prejudice thus barring refiling of the FOIA action.
I think I lost you, the SOL for the FOIA was never an issue, that was timely filed, the issue is the denial amended complaint the new added claims that I attempted to include. The SOL for example relate violations of 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1983, 1985, . . as well as Bivens claims because both state and federal government and officials are involved.

References: v. 
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 1291
 § 1292
 v. 
 § 2255
 § 2255
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.